REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE NATIVE LANDS BILL.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1869 Session I, F-06

1 , .—N0. 6.

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE NATIVE LANDS BILL.

ORDERED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO BE PRINTED, TOGETHER WITH THE EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, 23rd AUGUST, 1869.

WELLINGTON.

1869.

OEDEE OF EEFEEENCE.

Extract from the Journals of the House of Representatives. Friday, 13th August, 1869.— Ordered, "That the order of the House for the committal of the Native Lands Bill be discharged, in order that the Bill may be referred to a Select Committee; such Committee to consist of the Hon. Mr. Dillon Bell, Mr. Eichmond, Mr. Eolleston, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Carleton, Mr. Creighton, Mr. Iloworth, Mr. Brandon, Mr. Macffarlane, and Mr. Clark. Three to be a Quorum. To report on Wednesday next." {Hon. Mr. McLean.) August 18.—Time for bringing up Eeport enlarged to 20th August. Appeoximate Cost of Eetuen. Detailed Pakticuiabs. Amount. £ s. d. Cost of preparation ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Not given. Printing (1,150 copies) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 15 0 0 Total ... ... ... ... ... ... 15 0 0

Approximate Cost of Return.

Detailed Particulars. Amount. Cost of preparation Printing (1,150 copies) £ s. d. Not given. 15 0 0 Total ... 15 0 0

P.—No. 6,

The Select Committee on the Native Lands Bill have the honor to report that they have gone through the Bill submitted to them, and recommend that the same be passed with the alterations, elisions, and additions shown in the amended copy of the Bill annexed to this Eeport. Hugh Cai_..eton, 23rd August, 18C9. Chairman.

MINUTES OE PROCEEDINGS.

Monday, 16th August, 1869. Present: Hon. Mr. Dillon Bell, Mr. Howorth, Mr. Brandon, Mr. Macffarhme, Mr. Carleton, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Clark, Mr. Eichmond, Mr. Creighton, Mr. Eolleston. On motion of Mr. Ormond, Resolved, That Mr. Carleton take the Chair. Orders of reference read. Clause 1 read and agreed to. Clause 2 read. Moved by Mr. Ormond, That the Hon. Mr. Fenton be called in. Mr. Fenton having appeared, explained his views on the Act before the Committee. Mr. Creighton moved, the following amendment: —That after the word " and," in the sixth line of clause 2, the following words be added: " subject to the rights of appeal under the said Acts." Mr. Macfl'arlane moved a further amendment, That after the word " which," in the fifth line of the clause, the following words shall be deleted, " it shall be signed," and the following words inserted in lieu thereof: " the order has been made." Mr. Eichmond then moved, That the consideration of clause 2 be postponed. On the motion being put, the Committee divided. Ayes, 3. Noes, 4. Mr. Creighton, Mr. Brandon, Mr. Howorth, Mr. Clark, Mr. Eichmond. Mr. Macfl'arlane. The numbers being equal, the Chairman gave his vote with the Noes. So it passed in the negative. Mr. Eichmond gave notice of a further amendment, viz. : —" Provided that the legal estate in the land described in such certificate shall vest and shall be therein declared to vest from the day of the making the order for the issue of such certificate and the Crown Grant shall be issued in conformity with this proviso." On motion of Mr. Eichmond, the further consideration of clause 2 was postponed. Clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, postponed. Clause 10 read. Moved by Mr. Macffarlane, That subsection 1 of clause 10 be agreed to. On motion being put, the Committee divided. Ayes, 5. Noes, 2. Mr. Clark, Mr. Brandon, Mr. Creighton, Mr. Howorth. Mr. Macffarlane, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Eichmond. So it was resolved in tho affirmative. Subsections 2 and 3 of clause 10 agreed to. Subsection 4 of clause 10 postponed. The Committee then adjourned to Tuesday, the 17th August, at 11 a.m.

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE NATIVE LANDS BILL.

F.—No. 6.

4

REPORT OE SELECT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, 17th August, 1869. PbeseNT: Mr. Brandon, Mr. Macffarlane, Mr. Clark, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Creighton, Mr. Richmond, Mr. Howorth, Mr. Eolleston. Mr\ Carleton in tho Chair. Minutes of former meeting read and confirmed. Subsection 4 of clause 10 agreed to. Clause agreed to. Clause 11 read. Mr. Eolleston moved, That the Hon. Mr. Eenton bo requested to attend the Committee. Mr. Fenton attended as requested. Mr. Ormond moved the following amendment in clause 11 : —That the word " all," and the words " or their successors purporting to have been appointed under ' The Native Lands Act, 1865,'" be struck out, and to insert in liea thereof, " or the survivors of them." On the amendment being put it was agreed to, Mr. Brandon only dissenting. Tho clause as amended was then agreed to —Mr. Brandon dissenting. Clause 12. Agreed to —Mr. Brandon dissenting. Clause 13 read. Mr. Ormond moved : —That the words " whether heretofore granted or hereafter to be granted," be inserted after the word " grantees " in the first line of clause 13. And that the following words, " Provided always that this provision shall not apply to shares estates or interests already purchased from any such grantees which for the purposes of such transactions shall be deemed to have been equal" be added to the clause. On the amendment being put, it was agreed to —Mr. Brandon dissenting. Clause 13, as amended, agreed to—Mr. Brandon dissenting. Clause 14 read. Mr. Ormond moved. That all the words in clause 14 down to the word " Provided " bo struck out, and the following words be inserted in lieu thereof, viz., " It shall not be lawful for less than a majority in value of the grantees of any land under the said Acts or their successors as aforesaid to make any contract lease mortgage or conveyance of their estate or interest in such land or in any part thereof." On the amendment being put it was agreed to —Mr. Brandon dissenting. Clause 14, as amended, agreed to —Mr. Brandon dissenting. Clause 15 read. Moved by Mr. Ormond, That, after the word " thereof," the words " at the time of the first transaction" be added. On the amendment being put, it was agreed to —Mr. Brandon dissenting. Clause 16 read and agreed to. Clause 17 read and agreed to. Clauses 2 to 8 agreed to. Clause 9. Moved by Mr. Eolleston, That all the words after the word " whenever" be struck out, and the following words inserted instead, viz., ' : in any case before the Court any question shall incidentally arise affecting land tho subject of any dealing with the Natives prior to the 14th January 1840 it shall be lawful for the Judge of the Court to hear and determine the question which it is the immediate object of the proceedings to determine notwithstanding such land may be affected thereby and the determination thereof shall be final and conclusive between the parties to such proceedings and shall be binding on tho Crown." On the amendment being put, it was agreed to. Clause 9 as amended agreed to. The following new clause was then proposed and agreed to: — No penalty shall be incurred by reason of the non-payment of duty within the time prescribed for payment thereof under the said Acts provided the instrument on which the duty shall be payable shall have been presented for assessment within the time prescribed for payment and the duty payable thereon shall have been paid at the Treasury within seven days after the issue of the Ecgistrar's certificate of assessment. The following new clause was then proposed and agreed to ; — The limit of the time within which an Order in Council for a rehearing under the 8th section of " The Native Lands Act 1865 " may be made shall hereafter be three months instead of six months. The following new clause was then proposed and agreed to : — All Crown Grants and copies of Crown Grants authorized and required under the said Acts shall henceforth be prepared in the office of the Native Lands Court and shall be forwarded to the Secretary for Crown Lands for examination and execution. Eesolved, That Mr. James Home and Mr. Macgregor Hay be requested to attend the next meeting of the Committee. The Committee then adjourned to Wednesday, the 18th August, 1809, at 11 a.m.

F.—No. 6.

"Wednesday, 18th August, 1869. Peesent: Mr. Baigent, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Brandon, Mr. Beynolds, Mr. Creighton, Mr. Eichmond, Mr. Howorth, Mr. Eolleston. Mr. Macffarlane, Mr. Carleton in the Chair. Further Order of Eeference read, and minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. A letter from Mr. D. .7. O'Keeffe, auctioneer, of Auckland, requesting to be examined before the Committee was read, and the prayer of the petitioner granted. SIE — Wellington, 17th August, 1869. I have tho honor to request that I may be examined by the Committee sitting on " The Native Lands Act, 1869," having a considerable interest in property which will be affected thereby. _ I have, &c, Hugh Carleton, Esq., Chairman of Committee. D. J. O'Keepe The Hon. Mr. Fenton and Mr. Jas. Home examined.

Thursday, 19th August, 1869. Present: Mr. Baigent. Mr. Macffarlane, Hon. Mr. Dillon Bell, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Brandon, Mr. Eevnolds, Mr. Clark, Mr. Eichmond, Mr. Creighton, Mr. Eolleston. Mr. Howorth, Mr. Carleton in the Chair. Minutes of the previous meeting read and confirmed. The amendments proposed to clause 2 by Mr. Macffarlane and Mr. Creighton withdrawn by leave Clause 2 read and agreed to. Clause 3 read. The Hon. Mr. Fenton and Mr. D. J. O'Keeffe examined. .. A ] ? ttc * from Mr - T - Buchanan, Manager of the Bank of Australasia, requesting to be examined before the Committee, was read, and tho prayer of the petitioner granted. To the Chairman of the Select Committee of the House of Eepresentativcs on " The Native Lands Act, 1869." SlE '~ . . Bank of Australasia, Wellington, 18th August, 1869. ■ \ " Istltutlon wlucll 1 nave tne nonor to represent here has interests in lands at Graham's lown, in the Thames district, which interests may be prejudicially affected by the legislation proposed by the Bill now under consideration by the Committee over which you preside ; I therefore beg to be allowed to make a statement to tho Committee of the position'in which the Bank of Australasia is placed, prior to any report being agreed upon. I am, &c, tvt n i . m. _ _.. •r, ■ , ~ TIIOS - Bu chanan, Manager. Mr. Urmond moved, That tins Committee do adjourn until to-morrow at 11 a.m. Agreed to. The Committee then adjourned.

Friday, 20th August, 1869. Present : Mr. Baigent, Mr. Howorth, Hon. Mr. Dillon Bell, Mr. Macffarlane, Mr. Brandon, Mr. Ormond, Mr - Clark, Mr. Eevnolds, Mr. Creighton, Mr. Eichmond. Mr. Carleton in the Chair. The minutes of the previous meeting read and confirmed. Clause 8 was read, and the following amendment in substitution was moved by Mr Howorth — 8. Whereas certain certificates of title to blocks of land in the Province of Auckland have been issued by the Native Lands Court and which certificates bear date subsequent to the date of the order of Court m pursuance of which the same were respectively issued and whereas some of the persons entitled to the lands comprised m such certificates have since the date of the said orders as well prior as subsequent to tho date of such certificates entered into dealings and transactions in respect of such lands or of some part or parts thereof And whereas it is desirable that tho Court should have power to amend such certificates by altering the dates thereof or by declaring a day on which the legal estate in the said lands shall be deemed to be vested Be it therefore enacted as follows—lt shall be lawful tor any of the parties to such dealings and transactions his or their executors administrators or assigns at any time within six months after the passing of this Act and before the issue of any Crown Grant m pursuance of such certificates to apply to the Native Lands Court or to any Judge thereof to make such amendment as aforesaid and such application shall be heard and determined and all proceeding had thereupon m the same manner so far as the same may be applicable to the circumstances of the case as any ordinary proceeding in the said Court and it shall be lawful for the said Court if it shall think tit and it the circumstances and justice of the case require it to amend such certificates or an V one or more of them by altering the dates of such certificates or by issuing amended certificates in accordance with this Act declaring therein a day on which the legal estate in the lands comprised in such certificates shall be deemed to be vested and such altered or amended certificates shall be valid a

5

ON NATIVE LANDS BILL.

F.—No. 6.

and effectual and notwithstanding anything in the said Acts contained shall take effect as if such altered or amended certificates had been issued at the date therein named and all transactions with the persons named in such certificates or amended certificates since the date named therein for vesting the legal estate shall be deemed to have been valid notwithstanding anything m the seventy-fifth clause of " The Native Land Act 1865." Amendment agreed to—the Hon. Mr. Dillon Bell dissenting Mr. Howorth moved, That the following clause be inserted after clause 8:— .._.,, _~ m And for the purposes of the last preceding section it shall be competent for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and he is hereby authorized and empowered if he shall see fit to act with the Chief Judge or any other Judge of the said Native Lands Court and to hear and determine any case coming before the last-mentioned Court under the last preceding section in the same maimer as if he were Chief Judge of the said last-mentioned Court. Agreed to —Mr. Brandon dissenting. „ Mr. Howorth moved, That the following new clause be added to the Bill after the twenty-first CkU not be necessary for any married woman of the Native race on executing any deed required by law to be acknowledged before Commissioners to make such acknowledgment and such deed shall be as valid and effectual as if signed by a femme sole. moved, That clause 10 be recommitted in order to strike out the words " twenty " and " twenty-one." Agreed to. The Hon. Mr. Fenton and Mr Buchanan examined. The Committee then adjourned until Monday, the 23rd instant, at half-past 10 o clock.

Monday, 23rd August, 1869. Present : Hon. Mr. Dillon Bell, Mr. Macffarlane, Mr. Baigent, Mr. Ormond Mr. Brandon, Mr - Richmond, Mr. Clark, Mr - Rolleston. Mr. Howorth, _ , Mr. Carleton in the Chair. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. The Clerk read the following letter from the Hon. Mr. Dillon Bell "will you be good enough, in accordance with the Chairman's consent to my request of this morning to send the books containing the evidence before the Native Lands _ Committee to the Pnntimr Office ? Mr. Didsbury will return the book, re-bound, when the evidence is in type. You hid better not enter into the books any minutes not yet entered, but wait to enter the minutes till you get the book back. If Mr. Carleton is in the Government Buildings, submit this minute to him, that he may know what is done with the Minute Book. Mr. Clark moved, That the printing ad interim is approved. ThrChahman informed the Committee that Mr. O'Keeffe had asked for a copy of his evidence. The Committee refused the application. Mr. Ormond moved, That the Chairman be directed to report the Bill. M g r" Ekhmond moved, That the Chairman be directed to lay the minutes and appended evidence on the Table of the House, and to move that they be printed. A O"T*PP(I to b ' The Committee then adjourned.

6

REPORT OE SELECT COMMITTEE

7 F.—No. 6

Wednesday, 18th August, 1869. Mr. James Home in attendance and examined. 1. The Chairman] Upon what interest do you claim to be heard before the Committee ?—Upon Mr. Jm. Bmm. my own /. 18Ul August, 1869. 2. What is the nature of your interest ?—I hold land that would be affected by the Bth clause of 3. Mr. Macffarlane.] Did you get a lease of certain land known as Kauaeranga, No. 23 ?—Tes; 4. Did you get any title to that land, and when ?—I did ; on 17th August, 1868. 5. From whom? —From the Native owners. _ 6. How many were there of them? —Four Natives. 7 Was it before or after the order for the certificate was made?—lt was after. 8 Will you explain to the Committee how it happened ?—The order for the certificate was made in June and at the same time it was announced by the Judge that the certificate would bear the same date. It was on the faith of that announcement being carried out that I obtained my title, believing my title would be valid. • ■ . „ 9. What did you do in consequence of that: did you let any of the land m consequence of that i —Tes ; I sublet nearly the whole of it. _ 10. What title did you give the parties to whom you leased ?—I gave them a lease from myself. 11. Have you drawn rents from the leases ? —I have, for the last eighteen months. 12. Have you laid out any money in improving the land ? —Tes ; I have. 13. To what extent ?—Not to a very large extent. 14 Have you erected any machinery ?—I have ;to the extent of £1,500. 15. Have you erected any houses ?—Not on that land, excepting the houses connected with the 16. Ilave you seen "The Native Lands Act" now under consideration of the Committee?—l have what I believe to be a copy in my hand. . 17 Will you explain how that will affect your title ?—ln consequence of the certificate being dated after the date of my title, it will render the title invalid according to the 75th clause of " The Native Lands Act, 1865." I shall not be enabled to obtain any title. _ 18. Why ?—Because another party has stepped in and obtained a lease from the same Natives. 19' Will that cut you out?—Tes; because theirs is the first after the actual date of the certificate. The certificate to me was dated four months after the making of the order; it was not signed on the date of the certificate. 20 Mr. Brandon.] What date is the certificate ?—lt is dated Ist October. 21. To whom was the subsequent lease issued ?—To Messrs. Whitaker and Lundon. 22 Had any lease been granted by the Natives to any persons previous to the order ?—No. _ 23. Are you aware that any person had previously any interest in this block by agreement with the Natives ?—I am aware that no one else had any interest. 24 Mr. Macffarlane.] Tours was the first lease obtained from the Natives t— lt was. 25. Mr. Brandon.] Legal or illegal?—l knew the one I obtained before the order to be illegal. 26. Tou got a fresh one after the order was made ?—Tes. 27. Tou were not aware at that time that any one else had any interest, legal or illegal ?—I was not aware. , . , . 28 Mr Creighton.] Tours is the certificate in which there was an erasure or alteration made m the date of issue ?—Tes; it was originally dated 27th June, which date was erased with a knife or some other instrument—not with a pen—and the Ist October inserted instead. 29. By whom was the alteration made ?—I cannot say; it was done m the Native Lands Office. 30. What was the effect of that ?—The effect was to invalidate my title. 81. Tour machinery was erected as a quartz-crushing speculation?—Tes, and has been sold by me. 32. Was it erected on that piece of land the subject of your title ?—On a portion of it. 33. Was the machinery erected altogether on your land, or on a portion of the gold fields ?—lt was all erected on the land I claim; it was not erected on any portion of the gold fields. 34 Mr. Howorth.] Have you been at all disturbed in the possession of your land f— les. 35. In what way: by_ legal proceedings or by force ?—By a notice to the tenants not to pay their rents as they had been doing formerly. . 36. Toil are still in possession notwithstanding that ?—I am still in possession, but cannot draw 37 Tou have not been ejected by legal process ?—Not yet; there is no action pending regarding it. 38. Do you speak from recollection when you say that the certificate was to bear the same date as the order ?—I speak from recollection. 39 Tou were aware at the time you accepted the second lease from the JNatives that unless the certificate was dated the same date as the order of Court, your title would not be valid ?—Tes, 1 was aware of it. . ~ v . 40. Do you know what consideration was paid by Messrs. Whitaker and Lundon to the Natives for the lease ?—Tes, £100 per annum. . ._ , ~ ~ 41. What rent did you agree to pay ?--£53 for the first five years, and £100 for the residue of the term.

ON NATIVE LANDS BILL. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Witness in explanati&n of an answer previously given to a question put by Mr. Creighton, said -The lease from the Natives of the piece of land which I now claim had been [legally*! acquired subsequent to that piece of land being proclaimed within the gold fields acquired ouJSa . Blchmm ji Are .y° u aware whether Mr. Mackay or any one else, on behalf of the Crown, obtained an agreement for mining purposes, or any agreement affecting that land?-I was not aware that Mr. Mackay had included this land within the agreement when I obtained it. lam aware now %6. Uo you know the nature of the agreement now ?—Tes I do or no?' DOeS ** ° XpreSsly indude or exclude the uso of the surface?-It is doubtful whether it does 45. Mr. Creighton.] It is part of the second agreement ?—Tes it is 46. Mr Richmond] Is this land on the flat, or does it include a portion of the hills ?—The whole of it is on the flat, and docs not include any portion of the hills mininl'p^fTf 7 If ** e J° £ Z™. confirmed > J°u would have the exclusive right of Saqlestionof £ Vallda tion Act. I had before that, but not since. & That Mn/'/'v^Tf'' 1 Does your lease bear date subsequent to the second agreement with Mr 4% V m W \ T ' it \?" " ot fware at the time that that agreement had been entered into. ' rr\ f- ll «f arlan %\}* there anything else you wish to say to the Committee ?—No. . - )0 - Tou expressed a wish to have Mr. Hay examined. What is his position of thTdeeds * ? ~ He " "™ J S ° licit ° r ' and h ° "»«»*» ™7 evidence as to tne date tl» r hG C il ainnan ' 1 J' avin S ascertained the opinion of the Committee, informed the witness that dlnen°se with 1 ""8 M B £ temen * »t0 ■*»* &Ct ' UA not beon dis P uted > a » d W«S dispense with the evidence of Mr. Hay on that point. Witness was thanked, and discharged from further attendance. The Hon. Mr. Fenton in attendance. to the^on 0 Mr. FerSn. H ° W ° rth ' th ° S* oll * H ° rne be read over The evidence adduced by tho previous witness was then read over by the short-hand writer. The Hon. Mr. Fenton under examination. <Ym2_+2*_! Ghairman -y T ™ , ha ™ heard the evidence read, have you any observation to make to the Committee concerning it?—l desire to make no observation h.r, 52 't\V ! '; IloWoril **T J™ an J , reco l rd oftlle proceedings ?-Tcs, I have ; the Judge's notes are here. (Witness produced the notes taken by the Court ) I hnvJ i 1! T n °? Tv t0 T h f d f e , the certificate bear ?-I am not aware that there is ; I have not read through the whole of the notes. (Witness produced and read the record which explained why the date was altered.) ' en 54. Supposing it had come to your knowledge that tho transaction the last witness describes had been entered into with the Natives, would you have considered it your duty, had you been Judge of the Court, to ante-date the certificate so as to legalize the transaction entered into P-H I had the power, as a judicial man 1 think I should do everything I could to validate his title, supposing the statements to be true. As Chief Judge of the Court, I have not only to decide principle!Tlaw on equ.tabeg ro und Sl f you can understand the expression, I am greatly concerned with the political state of the country and I cannot separate the two functions ; although deciding legal questions I am m many cases deciding peace or war. The first thing necessary is to keep faitlTwith the Native and obe rr,t C l th6 M 5 alS °, t0 I>reVent th6m from bre " kin S faith Supposing the statements Horiie ™ J Jto UpSe * aU tW perSOUS wh ° Seem *° become after Mr. caJ^^^:Z^ mßk the eigMl CkUSe ° f BUI Will Shut Mm ° ut ' is that 56. Do you see any way in which his case would be met P—l should not like to answer that question; I should not like to be one of this Committee to decide upon it r.*nJ!j f ir 3 * a " J k I. "• f ° rCe ' t ° 1 y° Ur knowled ge, which would allow of the certificate being recalled for the purpose of being amended or altered, when it has once gone to the Secretary for Growl Lands ?-Well I suppose the Act of 1863 would give the Chief Judge o that power. If the Secretary for Crown Lands returned the certificate, the Judge might do it. secretary mad p s ?u *" "ection B . ** -IT ,i ud ? menfc . a provision that you would desire to have of any use partlCular ' lou cannot avold havm g ifc > * you want the previous part of the Bill to be 60 W,° IT in A a iT ° f th ° A f ha V n " retros P ectivo e ffect ?-I decline answering that question. oO. Mr Howorth.] Supposing the Bth section were omitted altogether, would you be able to alter S'SS PreY IBSU ° d Sll ° U, . d not Hke t0 a — CT that <l uesti - with -t eonsidelion or to guide tho Committee m any way as to that. nf Jt The ° hairman : \ Y ou appear to be unwilling to answer the question put; is it on the ground of your unwillingness to answer the question, or on the ground that you have not given the question ' sufficient consideration and require time ?-Tou are in effect asking me for a legal opinion. q 62. Mr. Creighton] If the Bth clause were struck out, and the bill passed without any other amendment, would it have a retrospective effect ?-I should say so; there is no doubt about that. clauseLoto Sp°Bl o S° 7 T "* ** T"' recollection of th ° intents of the previous clauses up to clause 8 ?—No ; I suppose it is so, as I put it in with the view of preventing it oi.no you think the power conveyed to amend any proceeding under tho Act of °186S would extend to enable you to ante-date a certificate under the present Bill," should it become law ?-I have so considered, and the profession m Auckland generally have made many applications to me under that

Mr. Jm. Some. 18th August, 1869.

Son. Mi: Fenton. 18th August, 1569.

* Amendment by Witness when the evidence was read over to him.

8

V.— No. 6.

REPORT OE SELECT COMMITTEE

clause to do so. I may state to the Committee, that when solicitors and other parties have brought this subject under my consideration in Auckland, I have told them that I thought if the grievances had arisen from their own misinterpretation of the Statutes, or a supposed failure of the Legislature to express its real meaning, Parliament could not properly be called upon to give relief by legislation ; but if they had suffered wrong in consequence of any errors made by an administrative officer, such as the Chief Judge under the Lands Act, or the Secretary for Crown Lands, Parliament might fairly be called upon to give such relief as it might think fit. I have no doubt there are errors, but I have not seen any brought before the Committee. I knew of one case in which a clerk issued a certificate that ought not to have gone out of the office ; it was a blunder. I did not know at first the conflicts of titles and difficulties that were gradually arising in the Thames Gold Fields. Since I became aware of them, I wrote to the Secretary for Crown Lands, desiring him to detain all grants until after Parliament had met. I also announced at the Shortland Court that I should issue no more certificates until the same period, unless compelled by a mandamus from tho Supreme Court, so that Parliament might declare its mind upon the questions. 65. Mr. Macffarlane.] Supposing the eighth clause were struck out of this Bill, do you think you would have sufficient power to deal with all these cases, and do justice to them ?—That depends on what is the issue of the certificate under the old Act. 66. Supposing we wanted to give you power to remedy all these defects, does the Act give you that power, omitting the eighth clause ? —I should like to have time to consider that question. Witness then withdrew. The Committee adjourned until 11 o'clock forenoon next day.

Sim. Mr. Fenton. 18thA Tißfiß

Tiiuesdat, 19th August, 1869. Mr. D. J. O'Keefe in attendance and examined. 67. Tlie Chairman] Upon what interest do you claim to be heard before the Committee ?— Generally upon the Bill now before the House. 68. I mean what interest or business have you in this matter ?—I am owner of a block of land in Graham's Town. 69. Mr. Brandon.] Will it be affected in any way by this Bill ?—I think so. 70. The Chairman] Do you hold land that would be affected by this Bill?—I do. 71. Will you explain to the Committee the manner in which your land will be affected by this Bill?—There is a block of land in Graham's Town called Kauaeranga, No. 23, which I hold by lease from one James Home, and by a purchasing fee from the Native owners. It is the piece of land marked upon this plan. (Plan produced.) I purchased that piece of land in connection with three other gentlemen, and gave £1,500 for it. Since then I have erected machinery upon it of the value of about £3,000. The block I estimate now as worth £20,000. It is situate on what is known as Graham's Town Flat, or Waiotahi Flat. The boundary line shown at the back is the old boundary line of the gold fields. I also produce the title-deeds from the Native owners in fee-simple. The Native owners of that property were declared to be seized of it on the 23rd June, 1868. 'There was a slight difficulty about one of the boundary lines, and it was ordered to be adjusted by the Court. On the Ist October, 1868, a sitting of the Native Lands Court was held in Chambers at Graham's Town. The Hon. F. D. Fenton was the presiding Judge. The subject of Kauaeranga, No. 23, was brought under the notice of the Court. It was stated that the boundary lino had been adjusted, and therefore there would be no objection to the certificate issuing. Mr. Hay, solicitor of the Supreme Court, asked His Honor how he would issue the certificate. The Court replied that it would issue the certificate from the hearing of the Court held on 23rd June; and the Court gave as a reason that the inquiry then before the Court was not one of title, but of adjustment of the boundary line. Mr. Hay, the solicitor acting for the owners, requested His Honor to take a note of the answer. His Honor replied that " it was unnecessary ; here is the order of issue in the book on the 23rd June ; the certificate will bear the same date." In support of that statement, I place before the Committee (produced) three statutory declarations, made by Hugh Hart Lusk, barrister of the Supreme Court, William Macgregor Hay, solicitor of the Supreme Court, and D. J. O'Keefe, auctioneer, of Auckland, the present witness. Mr. Home, having ascertained that the land had passed through the Court, obtained a lease from the Natives, bearing date 17th August, 1868. That was subsequent to the date of my purchase, which was on the 9th September. I purchased in September, and paid Mr. Home £1,500. I took an agreement for the lease, which I now produce. (Agreement produced.) It was for that entire block of land. I placed my agreement, to prepare a lease, in the office of Messrs. Whitaker and Eussell. It remained in that office for two or three months. I called to know if the deeds were ready ; I was informed that they were not ready. Subsequently I found that Mr. Whitaker, jum, solicitor of the Supremo Court, and a man named John Lundon, went to three of the Native owners of this property, and, by representations, they succeeded in obtaining another lease from the Natives of the same property. It was some time in March, 1869. Mr. Whitaker, jun, is no partner of the firm of Messrs. Whitaker and Eussell, nor is he associated with them in any way. 72. Mr. Brandon.] Had you taken possession at that time ?—Tes ; I was in possession at the time the lease was obtained by Whitaker and Lundon, and am now in possession. They had full notice that the land was occupied. I was in possession from the 9th September, 1868. They were fully in possession of the fact that large machinery was being erected on the property. On hearing that Whitaker and Lundon had obtained a lease from the Natives, I inquired of the Natives why they had given the lease, but I could get no satisfactory answer from them. One of the Natives, Aperahama, the father of one of the owners, refused to sign the lease, and stated as a reason that he would be committing a robbery, as he had already leased the land to Home. Mr. Joseph Cook, Native interpreter, was present, and explained the questions and answers. This Native informed me that Mr. John Lundon took him to an hotel, and offered him £100 to sign the lease. He

Mr. D. J. O'Keefe, 7 ism ugus ' yu e infra. Appendices A, B, O,

Vide infra. Appendices A, JB, 0,

3

9

1 , .—W0. 6,

ON NATIVE LANDS BILL.

F.—No. 6.

refused, and said it would be a robbery. Lundon then went to the settlement, a little way out of Shortland, and took money up to his house and laid it before the Natives, but the Natives refused to sign the lease _ I then placed the document in the hands of Mr. J. B. Eussell, a solicitor, to look into the title, and inform me how it stood. He reported to me that the certificate of title had been issued bearing date Ist October, 1868, and not as I understood it would have been dated, 23rd June • the effect of which is that Lundon appeared as the registered owner of three-fourths of the property— that is, assuming when the certificate is dated and issued that it is final. It however puts Home's fease m this position, that a construction is put upon the lease in law that it is void. The Chairman read the Eules of tho House to the witness concerning the examination of witnesses, informing him that if he found it necessary to make any statement which should cast a reflection upon any one he should be very careful to be strictly correct; that he must confine himself m his evidence to what bore strictly upon his case, of which he alone could be a judge. After this intimation, witness was directed to proceed. Witness—As further evidence of my statement, I produce a document to show that Whitaker and Lundon obtained tins property. I produce a deed, signed by Frederick A. Whitaker, purporting to be from Frederick A. Whitaker and John Lundon to Michael Hamiaford and N S Walker (deed produced). It purports to convey certain interests in this land, which he had acquired in the manner I have already described. Tins goes to show that the statements I made are supported in a measure by that document, inasmuch as Whitaker by his signature admits that he leased the property I shall read the concluding portion of the deed.—» And it is hereby declared and agreed by and between the said parties hereto that no covenants shall be implied herein on the part of the lessors their heirs executors, administrators, or assigns, that they have good right and full power to demise the parcel of land hereinbefore described; and, also, that if at any time after the date hereof the said lessees or either of them are required to pay rent to any person or persons other than the lessors or some one claiming through them, and that the lessors had not good right and full power to enter into and execute this demise, then these presents and everything herein contained shall be considered and be null and void ; and any rent which may be paid by the lessees, their executors, administrators or assigns to the lessors, their executors, administrators, or assigns, under these presents, shall be repaid by the lessors, their executors, administrators, or assigns. In witness whereof, the said parties have hereunto subscribed their names." Lundon refused to sign this deed. 73. Mr. Macffarlane.] What reason did he assign ?—I do not know the reason t/t Cr( "3\ton] Do you know that Lundon refused to sign the deed ?- Yes ■ my solicitor, Mr. J. B. Eussell, told me he refused to sign the deed. J5. The Chairman.] Why have you brought this clause of the deed under the particular attention of the Committee ?—To point out to the Committee that those people succeeded in obtaining the property they knew to be the property of others at the time, and one of the parties, being a lawyer says that all leases and agreements entered into with the Natives are void if made before the issue of the certificate. They went to the Natives and succeeded in obtaining the lease after the dale of the certificate, which should have been dated 23rd June, in terms of tho order of the Court instead of October. ' 76 When you say "the property of others," I presume you mean in bond fide possession of pthers, because, by calling it the property of others, you settle a legal point that is in dispute ?—Tes I mean in the bona fide possession of others. 77. Mr. Howorth.] It is an acknowledgment on their part that they have a doubtful title P— Tes, it is. J 78 Mr. Brandon.] Have you derived any title under the deed you have just put in P—No • I declined to accept any title under that deed. 79. Have you any interest from Whitaker and Lundon ?—None whatever 80. What would have been the effect of that deed, had it been signed by Lundon, so far as you are concerned ?—lt would have interfered with my rights as a freeholder of the property They would exercise a power for twenty-one years by their lease, and interfere with my freehold powers 81. Then the agreement in the deed was not entered into for the purpose of protecting you?— JNo, not as far as lam concerned. I did not know anything about it. ° 82 How came you in possession of this deed?—lt was given to me by Mr. Hamiaford, of the Bank of Australasia. J ' 83. Mr. Macffarlane.] Have any proceedings been taken in the Supreme Court to test the validity of your title ?—ISo ;I am quite certain there has not been any proceeding taken. These people have never exercised any rights of ownership over the property. 84 Do you know the terms of the agreement between Whitaker and Lundon and the Native owners .'—l do not know the terms. Ido not know what they agreed to pay 85. Mr. Creighton] Have you read the draft of the Bill before the Committee ?—Tes 86. Would you fell the Committee in what way it would affect your title to the block of land in question if it were passed in its present shape?—l think the first clause of the Bill (No 9) wou ia bear upon the subject, notwithstanding that the Bth clause is inserted in tho Bill. 87. In what way ?—lf there is any doubt upon the question as to the construction of law it appears to me that the Bth clause would not remove that doubt but leaves it open, and it would not apply to any particular case. • i _. 88 ' ,f r °o yOU sati f ed t0 tr J y° ul " «g }lt in the Supreme Court?—l am perfectly content to try my right m olio Supreme Court, and I do not think this Bill will assist me 89 Would it prejudice you ?-I think so. I think the Bill is a sort of departmental Bill granting powers to the Judge of the Court, and that it will not be such a Bill as will be acceptable to the public or assist m the adjudication of Native land titles. * ' J T 11 ! lders,and tha * Jon would prefer to allow the law to remain as it is rather than have it amended P—Unless the amendment went to the remedying of a particular wrong-the Committee having been satisfied that the wrong existed, and would not be remedied in the Supreme Court

Mr. D. J. O'Zeefe. 19th August, 1869.

10

REPORT OE SELECT COMMITTEE

91. But if no action has been taken in the Supreme Court, how can the Committee come to the conclusion that it would be a remedy ? —There is reason to believe that action will be taken in the Supreme Court, and I think the Committee has reason to assume such. 92. Are you aware whether there are any cases similar to the one you have just now stated ? — I do not know that they are similar. 93. Or would be affected by this Bill ? —I do not know that this Bill would remedy any cases in dispute, unless it have retrospective action, and power given in the Bill to deal with these cases ; on the contrary, it would prejudice cases that might be submitted to the Supreme Court. 94. Mr. Brandon.] Has the Crown Grant of this land been issued ? —No. 95. Are you acquainted with the practice of the Native Lands Court ? —I am. 96. If any errors appear in any of the documents, have the Judges been in the habit of remedying them ?—I think so; and I know that the Judge has done so. 1 think he has power under the 7th clause of the Crown Lands Amendment Act to remedy any errors of proceeding or date in document. 97. Have you represented that case to Mr. Judge Fenton ? —I have. 98. And pointed out the alleged injustice that would accrue ?—I have. He told me he would have no difficulty in antedating the document. I told him that Mr. Bridson explained to me that it was an error to put October in the document, and that the 23rd June should be inserted. Mr. Fenton said if he got a declaration to that effect from Mr. Bridson, he would remedy the error. The reason I did not get that declaration from Mr. Bridson was, that he thought he should, have Mr. Fenton's consent to make the declaration. Mr. Fenton gave me authority to get that declaration from Mr. Bridson. I expect to receive it by the next steamer from Auckland. 99. If the law would make the issue of the certificate take effect back to the date of the order, that would meet your case ?—Tes ; and I am quite content to take the law as it now stands. Witness was thanked and withdrew. Hon. Mr. Fenton recalled and further examined. 100. The Chairman.] A question was put to you yesterday which you desired time to consider. Have you been able to consider it ? —I have, and am of opinion that if this clause were struck out the Court would not have power to inquire into these cases. 101. Do I understand you to mean even if this clause were struck out ? —I mean so. Hon. Mr. Fenton then withdrew. After deliberation, the Committee then adjourned until Friday, the 20th instant, at 11 o'clock.

Mr. D. J. OKeefe. 19th August, 1869.

Vide infra. Appendix D.

Son. Mr. Fenton. 19th August, 1869.

Feidat, 20th August, 1869. Mr. Thomas Buchanan in attendance and examined. 102. The Chairman] Upon what interest do you claim to be heard before the Committee? —Upon an interest in connection with the Pararaka Block, in Graham's Town. 103. Tou claim, I understand, to be heard on behalf of the Bank of Australasia ?—Tes. 104. Do you consider that your interest will be affected by this Bill ?—I believe it will, as far as I have been able to understand the interpretation of the Bill. 105. Will you explain to the Committee in what manner you understand that your land will be affected by the Bill ? —The certificate of title and Crown Grant for this particular block has been issued, and is dated 15th January, 1869. I know the grant has been executed, but it has not been issued from some reason or other lam not aware of. The date of the certificate of title upon which the grant was prepared was subsequently altered to June, 1868; and any alteration in the Crown Grant would materially affect the title under which we claim. 106. Mr. Macffarlane] Why ? —Because our lease is dated in January, 1869 —bearing equal date with the original certificate and Crown Grant. Through the action of a solicitor in Auckland, the ■original lease from the Natives, which was taken before the land had passed through the Court, was improperly removed from the possession of the bank's solicitor, and has been refused to be delivered np. The lease had been obtained by a person named Mulligan, and transferred by him to the Bank. Mulligan subsequently sold his interest in the land, subject to the Bank's claim, to a man named Woolley. A gentleman professing to act for Woolley obtained possession of the original lease from the Natives, of which there was only one copy. We have been unable to regain possession of the original lease. Although the date of the certificate was altered from January, i 869, to June, 1868, it is presumed that alteration was made with other certificates of neighbouring blocks by mistake, because the Chief Judge of the Native Lands Court and Judge Munro both declined repeatedly to give instructions for the issue of these certificates subsequent to June, 1868, and up to the end of December, 1868. It is not to be presumed that after refusing to do it on application, they would do so without being called upon. The Natives to whom this land belonged, and in whom the title is vested, have made repeated application to the Secretary for Crown Lands and the late Native Minister, Mr. Eichmond, to have this grant delivered up in the condition in which it now is, bearing date January, 1869. In confirmation of the statement that the certificate should not bear date June, 1868, I may say that although the block was adjudicated upon, as far as ownership was concerned, in June, 1808, owing to a dispute about the boundaries the certificate was not made out, nor was there any final order for the certificate to issue. On the contrary, on Ist August, five weeks after hearing, a minute was made, and is now on record in the Native Lands Court in Auckland, that the case should be re-heard, on account of inaccurate survey, at the Court held in October, 1868. When the Court sat in October, the case was not heard, owing to the inaccuracies being still unsettled. The lands adjoining were adjudicated upon and settled there by consent, and this case remained over. The survey was subsequently completed by a re-survey and adjustment of the boundaries with those already passed in Court. The plan, then correct, was deposited in Court, and there being no opposition, the Chief Judge made the certificate as from January, 1869, at the request of the owners of the land. We have taken the lease from the Natives upon the faith of this certificate. The Crown Grant has been drawn up and sent to Auckland for issue, and any interference with that will prejudicially affect our interests.

Mr. T. Buchanan. 20th August, 1869.

11

P.—No. 6.

ON NATIVE LANDS BILL.

1 , .—N0. 6.

107. The Chairman] That is the statement you desire to make ? —Tes. 108. Mr. Macffarlane] The Crown Grant was made out in Wellington, and sent to Auckland for delivery, and delivery was refused? —Tes; it was refused pending a further reference to Wellington. 109. Why was it necessary to refer it to Wellington ? —That is of course a matter which I cannot explain. The Begistrar, as lam advised from Auckland, declined to deliver it up pending further reference to Wellington. 110. Do you know whether the Crown Grant has been touched or not—has the date of the Crown Grant been altered ?—I believe not; but I may state that when this reference was made to Wellington, instructions went from the office of the Secretary for Crown Lands to deliver it up ; but before these instructions could reach Auckland, the grant had been returned to Wellington. 111. Do you know where the Crown Grant is now? —It was in the office of the Secretary for Crown Lands. I judge, from a reference I saw in Hansard, that it is now in the hands of the Chairman of the Public Petitions Committee, 112. Have you applied for the grant in Wellington?—l have applied for it to send to Auckland; the Bank has no authority to receive it. 113. What reply did you get? —Pending the inquiry which was then going on before tho Public Petitions Committee with reference to Eobert Graham's petition, nothing could be done in the matter; but that, so far as the Secretary for Crown Lands then knew, there was no intention of altering the date of the Crown Grant. 114. How do you judge that this Bill will affect your case ? —Well, because any legislation which will affect the title to that land will affect our case, inasmuch as we hold that this matter has already passed out of the Native Lands Court, and any reference to it we consider may prejudicially affect us. I cannot say it will, inasmuch as the Bill has not yet passed. 115. Supposing the Bill were passed, how could it affect your Crown Grant ? —We have not got the Crown Grant, owing to this pending legislation. 116. Mr. Richmond] Tou say it might prejudice your case ; how can it be that diverting of title in the same person at an earlier period will tend to affect your interests ?—I have not gone into that question particularly, because that involves what we, at any rate, look upon as a malpractice among solicitors. The parties who obtained knowledge when the title became vested in the Natives, took advantage of that knowledge and got the lease from the Natives. 117. Mr. Macffarlane] In the event of a re-hearing taking place of your case, would you have any difficulty in establishing, to the satisfaction of the Judge, the bona fides of your case ? —No ; we do not anticipate that we should have the slightest difficulty ; but inasmuch as there are various transactions with reference to this same land, we consider that inasmuch as the Crown Grant has been issued, the land itself has passed beyond the jurisdiction of the Native Lands Court, and if anything is to be done reference should be made to the Supreme Court in the matter. 118. Mr. Clark] What is the date of Mulligan's transaction ?—The date is not given. 119. Was Mulligan's transaction with the Natives prior to the time the Court first adjudicated? —Tes ; the case was heard, but it was never adjudicated upon before 6th January. 120. Mr. Richmond] Had it been heard before Mulligan's first transaction with the Natives ? — I believe not. 121. Tou cannot say whether the first transaction by Mulligan was prior to the first sitting of the Court when it was found who the persons entitled were, but whose boundaries were left undetermined ? —My impression was that it was so. Witness was thanked and withdrew. Witness subsequently handed in the following statement, as part of his evidence. Pararaka Block. This block of land was adjudicated upon, so far as ownership is concerned, at the sitting of the Court on 28th June, 1868 ; but owing to a dispute as to the boundaries, the certificate was not made out, nor was there a final order that the certificate should issue. On the contrary, on the Ist day of August, 1868, about five weeks after the hearing, a minute was made and is now on record in the Native Lands Court at Auckland, that the case should be re-heard (on account of inaccurate survey) at the Court to be held in October, 1868—consequently, no certificate could bo issued as of June, although the ownership was decided in June. When tho Court sat in October, the case was not heard, owing to the inaccuracies being still unsettled. The survey was subsequently completed by a re-survey and adjustment of the boundaries with those already passed in Court, and the plan, then correct, was deposited in Court, and, there being no opposition, the Chief Judge made the certificate as from January, 1869, at the request of the owners. It could not have been the intention of the Judge who heard the case (Mr. Munro) that the certificate should bear date as of June, 1868, as on three different occasions, the last either in December, 1868, or January, 1869, Mr. Munro told Mr. J. B. Eussell, on an application for a copy of the order under the Native Lands Act, in the presence of Mr. Dickey, Chief Clerk, and Mr. Bridson, Certificate Clerk, of the Native Lands Office, that the certificate would not bo issued until the survey was perfected. Further, the Eegistrar of Deeds refused to register any deed relating to this land until a memorandum was sent from Mr. Teuton's office that certificate could issue, and this memorandum was repeatedly refused by the Chief Clerk, and also by the Chief Judge, until Mr. Eussell's authority to act for tho owners, and the correct plan, were produced, which was not till January, 1869. Hon. Mr. Fenton in attendance, and further examined. 122. The Chairman] It was agreed that you and Mr. Howorth should consult together concerning an amendment proposed by Mr. Howorth, —have you considered it? —Tes; we have. 123. May I ask the result of that consideration ? —Mr. Howorth has the paper. Mr. Howorth produced the document. Mr. How r orth examined. 124. The Chairman] This, I presume, is your amendment of yesterday in an amended form ?— Tes.

Mr. T. Buchanan.

20th August, 1869.

jKom. Mr. Fenton. 20th August, 1869.

Mr. Howorth. 20th August, 1869.

12

REPORT OE SELECT COMMITTEE

P.—No. 6.

125. Will you state tho substance of it ? —lt combines the substance of Mr. Eichmond's amendment with my amendment. The Chairman read the new amendment, clause 8. (Proceedings, pages 5-9.) Hon. Mr. Fenton further examined. 126. The Chairman] Tou have heard the discussion which has taken place concerning Mr. Howorth's amendment ?—Tes. _ _ 127. Have you any observation to add? —When I, as Chief Judge of this Court, prepared a Bill with amendments, which I told the House and the Committee were in my judgment absolutely necessary, I feel that the passage of that Bill through the House ought not to be endangered by the insertion of clauses, no doubt involving great principles, but founded on the desire to set up private rights. I cannot avoid thinking that there is really no dilemma about this business; and, although honorable members entertain different opinions, that these difficulties have arisen because the true course has not been taken, and that is to introduce a separate Bill. If the Committee, being aware beforehand of the difficulties that will be thrown in the way of passing this Bill by the Government (as they have been distinctly told), think fit to insert a clause in the Bill, of course it cannot be helped ; but it does seem to me that the danger to this Bill would be avoided, and the object of it would bo equaUy carried out, if they would simply direct the preparation of a separate Bill. 128. Mr. Soworth] Whether this clause be inserted in the present Bill, or whether it forms the subject of a new Bill, do you approve of the principle of it ?—That is a question I consistently decline to answer. 129. Mr. Dillon Bell] Have you any objection to say whether, after what has taken place, you would recommend the Government to withdraw their opposition to this clause ? —I feel a difficulty in answering that question, for this reason, that I shall have to sit upon this case hereafter. I cannot see how I can answer any of these questions without indicating an opinion. Mr. Buchanan recalled. 130. The Chairman] I am informed that you wish to correct a portion of your evidence ?—lt is my wish to do so. 131. Will you intimate your correction ? —With reference to tho question put by Mr. Eichmond as to the original dealing by Mulligan with the Natives, I find that it was alleged that Judge Munro had stated that the certificate should issue bearing date June, 1868. Then our solicitor says, " Had this been the fact, the Bank and others who dealt with the land would have been protected," clearly implying that the original title we held was a title which would be valid. I wish to correct tho statement I made, that I was under the impression it was prior to June, 1868, that Mulligan dealt with the Natives. It must have been subsequent to that date. 132. The Chairman] That is all you wish to say ? —Tes. Witness was discharged from further attendance.

Mr. Soworth. 2 o th 1869 .

Son. Mr. Fenton. 20tll AugU3tj i 869. Mr. t. Buchanan. aot]l Au "Z^~ lB69i

Mr. T. Buchanan. 20tli August, 1869.

APPENDICES.

Appendix A. I, Hugh Hart Lush, of the City of Auckland, in the Province of Auckland, in the Colony of New Zealand, solicitor, do solemnly and sincerely declare, — 1. That I was present at Shortland on the first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, when a Sitting in Chambers of the Native Lands Court was being held before the Chief Judge. 2. That part of the business transacted at the said sitting was the adjustment of the boundary line between allotment E., number five, and allotment number twenty-three, Kauaeranga. 3. That, immediately after the adjustment of the same, William Macgregor Hay, of Auckland, solicitor, made application to have the certificate for allotment number twenty-three issued as from the date of the hearing of the case, which the Chief Judge assured him would be done. 4. That the said William Macgregor Hay then applied to have his application put upon the notes, and was informed that it was quite unnecessary, as the certificate must issue as from the date of hearing of the case at Shortland. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of an Act of the General Assembly of New Zealand, intituled " The Justices of the Peace Act, 1866." Hugh H. Lusk. Declared at Auckland aforesaid, this twenty-second day of July, 1869, before me, Laueence D. Nathan, A Justice of the Peace in and for the Colony of New Zealand.

Appendix B. I, William Macgregor Hay, of the City of Auckland, in the Colony of New Zealand, solicitor, do solemnly and sincerely declare, — 1. That I was present at a Sitting in Chambers of the Native Lands Court, at Shortland, on the first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight. 2. That part of the business of the said sitting was the adjustment of the boundary line between allotment E., number five, and allotment number twenty-three, Kauaeranga. 3. That I appeared at the said sitting as solicitor for Aperahama Te Eeiroa, Tanameha Te Moananui, and Hirawa, being employed by James Home, who v, as interested in allotment number twenty-three aforesaid.

4

13

ON NATIVE LANDS BILL.

F.—No. 6

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON NATIVE LANDS BILL.

4. That immediately after the adjustment of the said boundaries, I applied to have the certificate dated back to the date of the hearing of the case, and the Chief Judge said that it would be done. 5. That I then applied to have my application put on the notes, and was informed by the Chief Judge that it was unnecessary, as the then present sitting was not a Sitting of the Court, but merely a Sitting in Chambers for the adjustment of boundaries, and as a matter of course the certificate would issue as from the hearing. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of an Act of tho General Assembly of New Zealand, intituled " The Justices of the Peace Act, 1866." William Macgeegoe Hat. Declared at Auckland aforesaid, this twenty-second day of July, 1869, before me, Laueence D. Nathan, A Justice of the Peace in and for the Colony of New Zealand.

Appendix C. I, Daniel Joseph O'Keefe, of Shortland, in the Province of Auckland, and Colony of New Zealand auctioneer, do solemnly and sincerely declare, — 1. That I was present at Shortland on the first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, when a Sitting in Chambers of the Native Lands Court was being held. 2. That part of the business transacted at the said sitting was the adjustment of the boundary line between allotment E., number five, and allotment number twenty-three, Kauaeranga. 3. That immediately after the final adjustment of the same, William Macgregor Hay, of Auckland, solicitor, applied to have the certificate under the Native Lands Act for allotment number twenty-three issued as from the date of the hearing, and was informed by the Chief Judge that as a matter of course that would be done. 4. That the said William Macgregor Hay then requested that a minute of his application should be put on the notes, and was assured that it was not necessary, and that the certificate must issue from the date of the hearing of the case at Shortland. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of an Act of the General Assembly of New Zealand, intituled " The Justices of the Peace Act, 1866." D. J. O'Keeee. Declared at this twenty-second day of July, 1869, before me, Laueence D. Nathan, A Justice of the Peace in and for the Colony of New Zealand.

Appendix D. I, William Bridson, of Auckland, in the Province of Auckland, in New Zealand, clerk, do solemnly and sincerely declare, — That I am a clerk in the Native Lands Court Office at Auckland, and that my duty is to prepare the various certificates of title for Native lands for which orders have been made by the Native Lands Court, That on the twenty-third day of June, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, an order was made that a certificate of title should issue for lot twenty-three, Kauaeranga; but on examination the plan was found not to agree with the plan of the adjoining lots, and the case was accordingly brought before the Chief Judge in chambers on the first day of October following, and duly passed. That the report of the Chief Judge of the Court as to the restrictions to be placed on the said allotment was drawn up and dated the first day of October, 1868. That when I proceeded to prepare the draft of the certificate of title for the said allotment, all the papers relating to it, except the said report, had been forwarded to Wellington ; and that I inserted in the heading of the said certificate the first day of October, 1868, as the date of the order for the certificate. That I inserted the said date in the heading of the said certificate, instead of the twenty-third day •of June, 1868, because the report bore that date and as I considered that if it were wrong the Chief Judge would correct it. That the draft and other papers were placed before the Chief Judge for approval, and shortly afterwards, finding them again on my table, I thought they had been passed by him as correct, and I accordingly engrossed the certificate, which was signed by the Chief Judge and forwarded to "Wellington in the usual course of business. That, according to the general practice of the Native Lands Court Office, the certificate of title bears the same date as the order for the certificate. That in the case above referred to the twenty-third day of June, 1868, is in strictness the proper date of the order for the certificate of title, and that the certificate should bear the same date. That the foregoing declaration is made only to the best of my recollection, as all the papers relating to the proceeding are at present in Wellington. And I, the said William Bridson, do make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of " The Justices of the Peace Act, 1866." William Bkidson. Declared at Auckland, this twenty-first day of August, 1869, before me, John White, J.P.

14