NATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: REPORT ON THE PETITIONS OF HARE RAKENA TE AWEAWE AND SIX OTHERS AND REWANUI APATARI AND FOUR OTHERS RE KAIHINU No. 2 (OR NGAMAEA) BLOCK TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. (Mr. R.M. HOUSTON, Chairman.)

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1905 Session I, I-03a

I.—3a

1905. NEW ZEALAND.

NATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: REPORT ON THE PETITIONS OF HARE RAKENA TE AWEAWE AND SIX OTHERS AND REWANUI APATARI AND FOUR OTHERS RE KAIHINU No. 2 (OR NGAMAEA) BLOCK TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. (Mr. R.M. HOUSTON, Chairman.)

Baport brought up on Thursday, the 24th August, 1905, and ordered to be printed.

ORDER OF REFERENCE. Extract from the Journals of the House of Representatives. Friday, the 7th Day of July, 1905. Ordered, " That Standing Order No. 218 be suspended, and that a Committee be appointed, consisting of nineteen members, to consider all petitions, reports, returns, and other documents relating to affairs specially affecting the Native race that may be brought before the House this session, and from time to time report thereon to the House; with power to call for persons and papers; five to be a quorum : the Committee to consist of Mr. Field, Mr. A. L. D. Fraser, Mr. Harding, Mr. Heke, Mr. Herries, Mr. Houston, Mr. Jennings, Mr. Kaihau, Mr. Major, Mr. Mander, Mr. Moss, Mr. Parata, Mr. Pere, Mr. Remington, Sir W. R. Russell, Rt. Hon. R. J. Seddon, Mr. Vile, Mr. Willis, and the Mover."—(Hon. Mr. Cabkoll.)

EEPORT.

Nos. 89, 1905, and 91, 1905.—Petitions of Hake Rakena te Aweawe and 6 Others, and Rewanui Apataki and 4 Others. Petitioners pray for rehearing in connection with Kaihinu No. 2 (or Ngamaea) Block. I am directed to report that the Committee has no recommendation to make with regard to this petition; but, with a view to finality being arrived at in the case in question, it recommends that the evidence taken should be printed. 24th August, 1905. R. M. Houston, Chairman.

PETITIONS.

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of New Zealand in Parliament assembled : Greeting. Your petitioners are aboriginal natives of New Zealand, belonging to the Tribe of Rangitaane, having rightful claims to a piece of land known as Kaihinu No. 2, or Ngamaea, Block. We earnestly pray that your House should consider the wrougs with which we have been afflicted and the loss we have sustained on account of the judgment of the recent Appellate Court, held at Hastings on the 23rd and 24th June, 1905. It will be manifest to you that during the sitting of the Native Land Court at Woodville on the 28th February, 1905, to investigate the titles of the block of land mentioned above, the following matters were considered : — 1. There were set up six different cases, with a conductor for each case, whose names will be seen from the folio attached hereto. 2. Mr. Morison appeared on behalf of some of your petitioners, requesting a certain favour from that Court, and that was to leave the disbursements of money and the inclusion of owners to the list of names, as consented to by the supporters of each case for the conductors to manage, which request was granted by that Court. 3. An agreement was executed by some of the conductors, and everything was done as they wished, but it was never submitted to us by those conductors—to us who were the persons who had proper rights to the land, and who appointed them to appear for vs —to satisfy ourselves with the list of names before it was forwarded to the Court. I—l. 3a.

I.—3a

2

4. The burning desire of your petitioners at that time was to see a Court set up for the investigation of titles to the land so that the lawful owners to this land might be found, and then, after that, a Court to ascertain the right amount of the money spent or lost, and also the amount of money that was still left to the owners of the land. - 5. Mr. Morison vehemently objected to the desire of your petitioners in the presence of that Court; however, that Court sanctioned the agreement on the 4th day of March, 1905, and on us fell the evil burden of such a dealing. The following is a list of the various troubles which befell your petitioners from the action on the Court in sanctioning that agreement: — 1. The inclusion of unentitled persons to the certificate of title to this land, and the rightful persons were excluded, because the Court never even inquired whether the persons were proper owners or not. 2. The amount of money spent or lost, with receipt of the same, together with the balance of the money, were thoughtfully requested by your petitioners to be placed before the Court or entered into the agreement of the several conductors; but even this was never granted. Soon after the judgment of that Court was delivered Rawanui Apatari made an appeal to the Appellate Court, begging for a rehearing, so that the grievances of your petitioners might carefully be looked into. That Court of Appeal has been granted, and was held at Hastings on the 23rd and 24th June, 1905. The applicant made strenuous efforts to bring before the Court the two causes of grievance mentioned above, introducing in support of his arguments the second paragraph of section 27 of the Act of 1901, also section 4 of the Act of 1904, but the Court gave no credence to all his words, thereupon your petitioners paid the sum of £20. Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your petitioners know full well that theirs is the fundamental claim to this piece of land, and, though your petitioners have spent pounds upon making appeals to England concerning this land in the Supreme Courts for the lawyers and conductors, yet we, your petitioners, will never be weary, but will unceasingly knock at your door to the end that you may appoint a Court fully equipped to investigate and confer the title on the proper owners to this land. And thus your petitioners will ever pray. Rewanui Apatari Keebi te Panau Eeeni te Aweawb Rakeiwhata Peeti. Emiri Paki Schedule. — -The Cases with their respective Conductors. Cases. Conductors. 1. Ereni te Aweawe Mr. Morison 2. Nireaha Tamaki Te Pereiha (Mr. A. L. D. Fraser) 3. Karaitiana Korou Kuku Karaitiana 4. Erina Marakai A. H. Kumeroa 5. M. Hangina Hone McMillan 6. Hare Eakena me Rangitaanc Hone Tehei (John Chase).

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of New Zea land in Parliament assembled : Greeting. Your petitioners are aboriginal natives of New Zealand, belonging to the Tribe of Rangitaane, having rightful claims to a piece of land known as Kaihinu No. 2, or Ngamaea, Block. We earnestly pray that your House should consider the wrongs with which we have been afflicted and the loss we have sustained on account of the judgment of the recent Appellate Court, held at Hastings on the 23rd and 24th June, 1905. It will be manifest to you that during the sitting of the Native Land Court at Woodville on the 28th February, 1905, to investigate into the title of the block of land mentioned above, Hare Rakena te Aweawe, conductor of the case of petitioners, begged that there should be an investigation into the rights of those entitled to this piece of land. He thereupon based his claims upon the ancestors, Tawhakahiku and Mangere, the rightful owners of the Tribe of Rangitaane, being carried exactly on the same grounds as those which were advanced in the hearing of the case at Masterton in the year 1871; but these matters were not given a proper hearing by the rec'nt Court. An agreement was executed by some of the conductors and lawyers of another case whereby they consented to enter some unentitled persons as shareholders in this land, and we, your petitioners and persons having rightful claims, were excluded from that document. Not until Hare Rakena te Aweawe, the conductor of your petitioners, was entirely ousted from this land that he made an appeal to that Court to grant him the third share of his elder brother —viz., Peeti te Aweawe, but his request was refused by Mr. Morison, who acted as lawyer and conductor for his sister, Ereni te Aweawe. The brothers and sisters of the said Hare Rakena te Aweawe have been treated as shareholders in the above block, and their names have been included in the list of names in the agreement, with the addition of those who were entered without proper rights to land; but on us fell grief and desolation in consequence of the award of the Court, held at Woodville on the 4th March, 1905. Immediately after the judgment was delivered Hare Rakena te Aweawe made an application to the Appellate Court to give a careful and diligent investigation of the rightful owners,of this land by means of Maori customs and rights, so that it may be in accordance to the second paragraph of section 27 of the Act of 1901, also section 4 of the Act

3

I.—3a

of 1904. The Court of Appeal was held at Hastings on the 23rd and 24th June, 1905, but these grievances were not well looked into by that Court. Your petitioners also forwarded the genealogy mentioned in the schedule hereto for the enlightenment of that Court to our relationship to those who were included as owners to the block of land in question, but all were in vain, for the Court in its award of the 24th June, 1905, did not consider us. Wherefore, as you are well informed of your petitioners' grievance, your petitioners will humbly pray that a rehearing by a competent Court should be instituted to reinvestigate the title to this land according to Maori customs, and thus your petitioners will ever pray. Hake Rakena te Aweawe Hemana te Whktu Enia Heni te Aweawe Tamihana te Aweawe Heeni te Rangiotu Ema te Aweawe. Manawahoa

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Wednesday, 2nd August, 1905. C. B. Mobison, Solicitor, Wellington, examined. (No. 1.) 1. The Will you just give your evidence in regard to these petitions? You might take the two together, as both are on the same subject?—l may say that I was in no way concerned with the litigation in the case of Nireaha Tamaki against Baker. I had nothing to do with that action at all. I did appear in a formal matter, instructed by Messrs. Hankins and Loughnan, of Palmerston North, on a question which arose after the passing of the Act providing for the discontinuance of the action. That is some years ago. I had nothing further to do with the case at all, and was not interested in the case, directly or indirectly, until Mr. Moffatt, who is an interpreter and land and commission agent at Palmerston North, came to Wellington in February last and asked me if 1 could act for Erini te Aweawe, Rewanui, and his mother, who was Rewanui's sister and also the daughter of Erini, at an inquiry directed to be held by the statute. I had an engagement in New Plymouth at the time, and had some difficulty in arranging to go to Woodville, but he said it was a matter of importance to the parties, and I went. I saw Moffatt in Wellington, and he gave me instructions as to what I had to do in the matter, and as to the nature of these people's claims. That was, I think, some four or fire days before I went to Palmerston Norih. The case was adjourned until Tuesday, I believe, the 28th February. I have no papers with me, because I left all papers with Mr. Moffatt after the case. 1 left Wellington on the Monday and arrived at Palmerston the same night, taking the first train to Woodville on the Tuesday morning. Up to this time I had not seen Rewanui Apatari or Mrs. Moffatt at all. They were at Woodville. I went up by arrangement with Mr. Moffatt. Mr. Moffatt called at my office yesterday, and stated that he had in his possession written authority for me to act on behalf of these Natives, and I did act for them. I did not trouble about getting a written authority from the Natives, but he had taken care to get it. The Court opened on the Tuesday, and there were about half a dozen parties with professed claims to this money, and it occurred to me—and indeed to the others —that as there had been an enormous amount of legal expense incurred in this matter it .would be much better if the parties could come to an understanding, because it was quite obvious that if the claimants were to fight the matter at length the proceedings would take weeks. The result was that Mr. Eraser, who was representing Nireaha Tamaki (a prominent claimant), and I and the others met and went through the various accounts that had been sent to the Natives, and analysed them as far as it was possible to do so. We then arrived at some basis of arrangement. We got adjournment after adjournment of the Court for the purpose of really getting at the bottom of the position, and we had a little difficulty with one or two of the outside claimants, who, so far as I could judge, were coming there "on spec." They had not taken any part in the litigation apparently, but they did represent interests under the names of the original owners of the Kaihinu Block, of which this was admitted to be a part. We therefore concluded that the best thing would be, if possible, to come to an understanding with all of the Natives, and see if we could get an adjustment of the various interests, i-ecognising, of course, only the real claims and not the speculative claims. During this time Rewanui Apatari, Mrs. Moffatt, and Erini te Aweawe were in constant communication with me. 1 took no steps without communicating with them through Mr. Moffatt, who was perfectly well acquainied with all that was going on, because, as far as English is concerned, he is a pakeha, and, I believe, a perfectly reputable and upright man. He communicated everything to them, and discussed with them a dozen times various matters as they arose during the time we were in Woodville, and I may say that, although I felt there were difficulties at the commencement of the case as to the extent of the claim which my clients preferred, I succeeded, by the arrangement I made For Rewanui, her sister, and her mother, in getting better terms than I had anticipated. I think they were entitled to all they got, but there were difficulties in the way, and it seemed to me that the arrangement made was one that was highly satisfactory to them. No doubt the Committee will have brought before it the terms of the actual agreement that was drawn up. In addition to what appears in the agreement, I made certain arrangements with Mr. Baldwin, who had acted for these Natives in the action Nireaha Tamaki v. Baker, who was then at Woodville, with regard to certain claims made against Rewanui. One was a claim for £80, made by Mr. John Thompson, of Wellington. I arranged with Mr.

I.—Ba.

4

Baldwin that he was to satisfy that claim by the payment of the sum of £60, and I understand that that matter has been settled between Mr. Thompson and Mr. Baldwin. There was also a bill of Mr. Baldwin's for £118, and I arranged that that claim should be withdrawn. There was a bill of costs also put in by Messrs. Brandon, Hislop, and Johnston against Rewanui. 1 believe it was approximately £80, but as to that lam subject-to correction. That 1 also arranged that Mr. Baldwin should pay. I considered the question as to whether the Natives would get any advantage by contesting the costs which had been incurred in the action of Tamaki v. Baker. The costs had been paid, and, after consideration of the claims, I saw that it would cost them more to get the bill reduced and to obtain repayment of any reduction than the amount they could possibly get out of it. That is the conclusion I came to, rightly or wrongly, and 1 acted upon it. I understand that Rewanui has said that I had no authority to act for her. I wish to say that I took no steps whatever in this matter without interviewing her and her mother and sister through the nephew, Mr. Moffatt, and every clause and every term in the agreement was explained fully and agreed to by her without any qualification whatever. Now, with regard to Hare Rakena, who is a half-brother, I understand, to Erini: The principal person who instructed me to oppose Hare Rakena's claim was Rewanui herself. In fact, Mrs. Moffatt expresed sorrow for her halfuncle, and said she would have been inclined to meet him out of Aroha, but Rewanui was obdurate. Hare Rakena was a half-brother of Erini te Aweawe; they had the same father but different mothers, and I was instructed that an arrangement had been come to by which the lands on the western side of the range should go to the descendants of one mother, and those on the eastern side of the range should go to the descendants of the other mother. That arrangement had evidently been acted upon, and was based apparently upon the genealogy. Hare Rakena was in Court and was cross-examined by me as to his claim, and no doubt his evidence will bo before you, as it was taken down by Judge Brabant. I might say that the Judge and Mr. Nicholson dismissed his claim without calling on me for any further evidence after his cross-examination. I say this: that the ovie person who instructed me to oppose Hare's claims strongly was Rewanui herself, and 1 now understand that she has said that she did not. If she has said so I say her statement is absolutely without foundation. I was particularly careful in this matter to see that tjiey all thoroughly knew what they were doing. Further, there was no suggestion from my clients at Woodville of the least objection to the whole arrangement —there was no indication of it. When the agreement was come to there was one man supporting a claim before the Court with regard to whom there was a little difficulty. He wanted an extra share for some reason that we thought wholly insufficient. We contested this, because it appeared to us that he was rather taking advantage of the occasion to break up an arrangement if we did not come to terms. We were obdurate about it. and the Judge supported us. The arrangement was discussed in open Court, not once, but several times, during the course of the period from Tuesday to Friday afternoon, when it was concluded. The proceedings took four days, and on the Friday afternoon my recollection is this: that we met late in the afternoon, and the terms of the arrangement were stated to the Natives present in Court. Ths Court was adjourned until the evening to allow the agreement to be made more complete, and the agreement was read over, and interpreted by Mr. Grace, to all the Natives present, and none of my clients had the slightest objection to offer. Rewanui got up in Court and told the Court something to this effect: that with regard to the claims it must be understood that she did not proceed on her ancestral takes, implying, as I understand, that these were not affected by the arrangement. What I understood to be in her mind was that whatever allocation of the moneys was made in connection with the block was not to be taken as an admission as to the relative interests in the adjoining blocks. That was confirmed subsequently at an interview I had in Wellington, when I was instructed by her to write to the Chief Judge and object to Hare Rakena's appeal, which I did. Ido not think there is anything further that I can say in the general outline of the case. As to the fairness of the arrangement, I might say that I should not have agreed to it if I had not thought it was a fair one. It was an arrangement of a give-and-take nature in which no one got what he actually wanted to get, but the Natives were likely to take several weeks in useless litigation over a mere relic of what had been a substantial interest, and I am sure that no one who had any idea of what was fair and proper in the matter left that Court without feeling that the Natives had had a very fair and satisfactory arrangement made for them. I think I have given a fair outline of the position, but I may say that I left all my papers with Mr. Moffatt. There was some talk of an appeal, and I told Mr. Moffatt that he had better keep all the notes and papers together, and if an appeal came along from Hare Rakena he would have them available. Rewanui having, as I was informed, disputed my authority in the Appellate Court at Hastings to act for her in the matter, Mr. Moffatt saw me a day or two ago, and said that he had in his possession her written authority, signed by her, her sister, and her mother. I have not seen the document myself, and I did not take the trouble to get the authority, because I thought I was dealing with Natives who belonged to a very high class, and was instructed personally by the whole three of them. If Mr. Moffatt sends the authority down to me I will have it sent to this Committee. That is all I have to say in the matter. 2. Mr. fferrie*.] This arrangement was appealed against?-—Yes, to the Appellate Court. I did not appear in the Appellate Court; I had no instructions. I understand the Court dismissed the appeal with costs, and I heard afterwards that Rewanui, before the Appellate Court, repudiated my authority and all that 1 had done. 3. AVho appealed?— Hare Rakena, I understand, appealed; also Rewanui. I think the difficulty was this: that Rewanui got an impression that Nireaha's mana was raised a little more than Rewanui's. I explained to her, at an interview in Wellington subsequent to the Court in Woodville, that an arrangement of this kind was no acknowledgment of mana or anything of the kind. The point was that Nireaha had been the nominal plaintiff in the main action against Baker. He did not find all the funds, but he was chosen for some reason as nominal plaintiff,

5

I.—3a

and had gone to an enormous amount of expense over the matter, and, if I may be permitted to say so, the benefit he got under the award was not a penny more than he was entitled to. There were two others admitted as entitled in Woodville whom I could not see my way to oppose successfully. The Kaihinu Block was investigated in 1871. We had the minute-book of the case and a list of the grantees of the block, and in some cases there was only one member of a family included. For instance,, Ihaia Whakamairu, of Masterton, was included, and his full sister left out. We all agreed should be admitted. For some reason only one of Erini's brothers was included, and the others conceded that my client should get three shares in favour of the one family instead of one. We adjusted the thing on a fair and just basis, and Ido not think we could have got a better adjustment. As I said, no one got really all he wanted, but in these cases they never do. The Chairman: I understand that Mr. Fraser, a member of this Committee, who is connected with this case, is not prepared to make a statement himself, but is quite prepared to give evidence before this Committee as a witness if called upon. 4:. Mr. W4 Feie.] Do you know the area of the land which forms the subject of the case which Nireaha Tamaki went Home about? —I cannot recollect it at this moment, and I have not got v single paper connected with the case with me. We were not dealing with acres, but were dividing a sum of money among the Natives awarded by an Act of Parliament. 5. You did not hear that it was 5,000 acres in area?-—lt may have been. I know it was a substantial area, but I could not say whether it was 5,000 or 7,000 acres. I believe they claimed about 5,000 acres. 6. Of course, you know there was no other 5,000-acre block which formed the subject of the case taken Home to England at that time ?—We were not concerned with any area, but with a sum of money. 7. I want to explain to you that this money was not satisfactory, and that it was a claim for 10,000, not 5,000 acres?— That may be so; Ido not know. 8. My reason for asking the question is this: It has been stated that it was through the act of Nireaha that proceedings were taken. He had the money,, and this case came before the Court; and, further, I would like to explain that in regard to the 5,000 acres, there was never a case brought forward. It was 1 personally who obtained the condition of the 5,000 acres which was the subject of the case taken Home. 1 discovered that. My reason for referring to this is because one of the reasons advanced why Hare Rakena should not be included in the land was that he had contributed no part of the cost of taking the case Home?— That was not the reason for throwing Hare Eakena's case out. There were others who had not contributed, but who were admitted to a share as their rights. 9. Was Hare Rakena's name left in ?—The arrangement had been made among these people themselves —that the children of one mother should confine their claims to one side of the Tararua Range, and the children of the other one to the other side of the range. Te Aweawe was the father of these children. 10. Was it stated in Court that an arrangement had been made ?—Yes. I cross-examined Hare Rakena on the question, and after the cross-examination we were not called upon to adduce further evidence. 11. Am I to understand that the land which Hare Rakena's people had a right to was outside the Kaihinu Block?— Those were my instructions, that Hare Rakena, by his arrangement with his family in regard to the succession, would not come in to the Kaihinu Block. I have explained that Te Aweawe made an arrangement that the children of one mother should make no claim for succession on one side of the range, and the descendants of the other mother should make no claim for succession on the other side of the range. 12. Was this arrangement made outside, or was it publicly made in the Court? —It had been made long before; I cannot tell you when. Those were my instructions. I am told that that arrangement has been consistently acted upon by the family. 13. Who instructed you that that was the arrangement?—Rewanui. 14. Rewanui Apatan : Did you correctly state at the Court at Woodville that Te Aweawe had the right to the land?—l can say that you told me so, and the cross-examination of Hare Rakena proceeded on that assumption. 15. Supposing we get the records of the Court, and find that it was stated in Court that Tarake had a right to the land I —l am not prepared to say that is not so. lam only stating my recollection. The minutes of the Court will show. Ido not know who Tarake was. I have no recollection of the name. 16. I want a direct reply. If these books are referred to, and you say that it was what I say, that Tarake was right, what would you say to that? —My recollection is that the arrangement was as to the children of the different mothers. My cross-examination of Hare Rakena proceeded on that assumption. 17. lam not satisfied with your reply to my question ?—Who was Tarake? I cannot carry the genealogy of the Natives in my head. The minutes of the Court will show. 18. Did I personally come and acknowledge you as appearing for me in the Court?— You personally instructed me. In every step I took you instructed me. and we consulted together as to every step I did take. 19. I want to know if I was actually interviewed, and whether I ever came to Wellington on any occasion to ask you to act as my lawyer?—l have not said so. Mr. Moffatt, your nephew, instructed me on your behalf, and on your mother's and sister's behalf. 20. Did I understand you to say just now that you had been five days in Palmerston ?—I did not say so. I got to Woodville on Tuesday morning, leaving town on the previous day, and stopping at Palmerston that night. 21. Do you say that I never at any time came to you and objected to the arrangement on

1.-3 A

6

which the award was based at Woodville?—At the Court. No. At the Court you agreed to the .arrangement, but in Wellington you came to me and said you were afraid the effect of this agreement would be that Nireaha'e mana would, as the result of the award under the agreement, be placed higher than your own, and I explained to you that that was not so—that there was no inquiry in the Court, that everything was done by arrangement, that the taken were not fought out, and I advised you to leave well alone. 22. Did you not tell me not to oppose Hare Kakena's appeal?—No; 1 advised that the appeal was out of time, and it was too late. You then instructed me to write to the Chief Judge, protesting against Hare Rakena's appeal, and I wrote accordingly. 23. Was it not you who instructed me to write to the Chief Judge?—l believe I said you could write if you liked; but I was instructed to write, and did write. 24. Did you not in the first place tell me to give you a written statement, so that you could see what it contained?—tt was suggested by one or the other that you should send a letter in, and that I should see it, so that it might not prejudice your position; but I never saw it. 25. Are you absolutely certain that I am the person who instructed you in regard to this case?—l have already said that the person who originally instructed me was Mr. Moffatt, and that when I got to Woodville I saw you and took no step without your consent. 1 consulted you day after day, and sometimes more than once in a day, and the agreement was acquiesced in by you without the least indication of dissent. 26. Then, you say that what you did was for the benefit of myself and my relatives, and our case generally? —Yes, that is so. 1 was acting for the three—Rewanui, Mrs. Moffatt, and the mother. 27. You know that Hanita te Aweawe was one of three children of the one mother? —I believe that is so. 28. How was it that you did not arrange for a refund to Hanita of the £200 and odd pounds that he had originally contributed towards this case?—l believe you will find in the allocation that there is so-much for costs in respect of Hanita's share, which was divided among his successors. Is he not dead ? 29. You know whether he is dead or not?—l am not a registrar of births, deaths, and marriages in Native matters. You will find in the award—l think it is in the first schedule—his allocation for costs; it is included under Erini's name or your own, [Items read.] 30. How much did Hanita get?—l can only say that the full accounts were put before you, and that an arrangement was made with Mr. Moffatt as to the allocation. 31. What I mean is this: You have stated that you are satisfied that what you did was the best for the interests of the parties, und that you could not do better ?—That is so. 32. Why did you not arrange for a refund to Hanita? —Hanita was dead, and the money had to go to his successors. Mr. Moffatt has all my papers, and there may be a memo, on one of them that will show it. 33. What I want to get from you is this: the exact amount of money agreed to be given as a refund of the money Hanita was out of pocket? The Chairman: I want Rewanui to confine herself strictly to the agreement. 34. Bewanut Apntari: I am asking questions referring directly to the agreement?—l have no papers at all with me. I left them with Mr. Moffatt, at Woodville, because there was some talk of an appeal. There was a careful adjustment of the moneys, and the agreement shows that in respect of costs paid Erini gets so much, and you get so much. I have no data with me, and I cannot carry my memory back as to the details. 35. I simply wish to draw your attention, and that of the members of this Committee, to the fact that I have given you every opportunity, by closely questioning you, to answer by questions. The Committee will see that you are unable to reply as to the amount of money that has been apportioned? —I cannot say now how the amounts were made up, but I know it took us hour after hour to make up a fair adjustment amongst the Natives. 36. The Chairman.'] An adjustment to which she agreed?— Yes. The whole thing was settled in Court, and there was not a syllable of dissent. 37. Bewanui Apatari: That is the very reason why I appealed. I wanted to find out the position of these people with regard to Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Thompson, because these were the lawyers who had conducted this case. Do you know anything about Maori custom? —No. I will answer that at once. 38. Then, I want to know why you agreed to the inclusion of those persons whom you were satisfied it was advisable to include. , who was dead long before, in 1874, and I want to know what right you recognised that these people had to this land? The Chairman: The whole point is this: Mr. Morison says there was an agreement to which the petitioner gave her assent, and that agreement was carried out. It is for her to prove that she did not consent to the agreement. 39. Bewanui Apatari: I did not agree. I did not accept the arrangement made by him with regard to that agreement. I applied for a Court of inquiry to inquire into the rights of these persons, to find out who were and who were not entitled to the land, before I would agree to an arrangement like this. lam in the position that some of the persons who are in the Crown grant are, who are not entitled to the land ?—You were present in Court, and the agreement was signed by the agents on behalf of the Natives in the presence of the Judge. The whole thing was done with the utmost care. 40. They signed, but I did not tell them to sign?— After the whole thing was concluded the question of appointing trustees for infant beneficiaries arose, and, if I remember aright, you assisted in the appointment of some of these trustees.

7

I.—Ba,

41. Can you tell me what was the groundwork of your case against Hare Rakena? The Chairman: Mr. Morison has stated that the agents of the different parties came to an agreement on behalf of the several parties, and this was read out in the Court in the presence of all the parties concerned. They were asked if any one objected to the agieement, and no one appears to have done so. What have you to say to that, Rewanui ? Rewanui Apatari: That is correct, but when I saw the judgment I saw that we were injured. Then I appealed for an inquiry into all these injuries that had been done, because the law provides that if any person is injured through the award of any Court that person has' a right to appeal, and have all his grievances inquired into. When Igo to the Appellate Court lam thrown out. Why? Because I did not stand up on the first occasion. The Chairman: Was the injury inflicted through this agreement? Rewanui Apatari: Yes. The Chairman: And yet you consented to the agreement in the Court. Rewanui Apatari: I did not. The Chairman: But you did not object to the agreement in the Court? Rewanui Apatari: That is correct. I did not object, because I did not quite understand it when it was read out; but as soon as I did thoroughly understand it, I immediately appealed for an inquiry to be held into all my grievances. 42. Rewanui Apatari (to Mr. Morison): Who instructed you to draw up the agreement as between the parties?— From the very first discussion I had with Mr. Moffatt, who was the mouthpiece of his mother and aunt and grandmother, we saw that you would come out of this very much better by this arrangement. There were difficulties in your way that I explained to Mr. Moffatt when he consulted with me in Wellington, and my first advice to him was that if possible he should come to a settlement rather than go in for some weeks of fighting, and I believe you have got far more by that arrangement than you could ever have got by fighting. 43. Did you not run towards me at Woodville to make me sit on the ground because I did object in the Court? —No. I went over to you and spoke to you quietly, because you were inclined to get excited about Hare Rakena's claim, and I suggested that you should sit down and leave Hare Rakena's claim to me. But you did not stop when I suggested that you should, but went on. 44. Do you not remember the Judge saying in Court that the question of ancestral rights to the land had gone as far back as 1871 ?--That was common ground. That was the basis of our settlement. The Chairman (to Rewanui): You must confine yourself to this claim. Rewanui Apatari: I think 1 have asked every question I can to show that I objected to the agreement Mr. Morison drew up, and the Chairman and Committee must see clearly that my party derived no benefit From Mr. Morison's arrangement. Mr. Morison says he cannot show anything in his papers as to how the amounts are apportioned. 45. Mr. Wi Pere (to Mr. Morison).] Do you know that the proceedings were to ascertain at the time who were the persons and what the proportions of this money were to be, and that those persons must be the persons entitled to the land from which the money was derived?— That is so. 46. But this agreement prevented that?—No, pardon me; that is not so. 47. Did not the agreement shut out the inquiry into the rights of the individual owners? — There was no inquiry, for this reason ; it was admitted that this land was part of the Kaihinu Block No. 2. We had the Crown-granted owners of this block. We started upon that as the basis. The relative interests of these Crown grantees had not been ascertained, although their names had been. Where a brother had been included and a full brother or sister excluded we felt that the Court would add to that list of Crown grantees, and so we added one or two names which we all agreed and felt we could not keep out. 48. Were the persons left out, and you agreed to admit dozens of the dead grantees?— They were in some cases full brothers and sisters of the dead grantees. For instance, Ihaia Whakamairu was inserted in the list in the minute-book, and his full sister was left out, and if he had a right she also had a right. Then the successors of the dead grantees were put in, and, having got the list of names settled by consent of all the parties, then we agreed as to the relative interests of each, every person consulting his client as to what he should agree to, and the relative interests were fixed by agreement. 49. Was there no search for any other rightful owners beyond these?—We did not search beyond those who claimed before the Court. A number of people came for the purpose, and those who claimed and substantiated their claim we agreed to. We did not go and search the country for claimants. 50. Then, the only claim that was disallowed was that of Hare Rakena's?—That is so, and disallowed on the ground that the succession to this land would pass to his half-brothers and halfsisters. 51. Did the descendants of other claimants put in?— Yes; but I have explained that he stood in a different position on account of the old arrangement with his family as to succession. 52. The Chairman.'] You say that Hare Rakena was not in this agreement?— That is so. 53. Did he make any money claim because his name was not in the agreement?—My recollection is this: that he was willing to be bought off for £50 at one stage of the proceedings, but I did not see may way to advise that. I left it to my clients themselves, and no settlement was come to. 54. Were yon the only one who objected?— No. His claim was objected to all round, but Rewanui was the one who particularly instructed me as to the ground of objection. He was crossexamined before the Judge as to his right to this land, and, as a result, the Judge and the assessors unanimously rejected his claim.

I.—3a

8

Memorandum for the Members of the Native Affairs Committee. I desire to add to my evidence given before tbe Committee that, as I acted not only for Rewanui but for her sister, Mrs. Mofiatt, and her mother, Erina, I feel strongly that it would not be in the interests of these Natives to reopen this case. From .my experience of matters of this kind, I am satisfied that if the matter goes again before the Court and is settled as the result of a contest, the major part of the fund will be dissipated in expenses. There is considerable rivalry among the various claimants, especially in view of an approaching inquiry, as to the ownership of another block in the locality. I believe the real reason for wishing to reopen this question is the misapprehension on the part of the Natives moving as to the effect of the arrangement come to on the relative degrees of mana claimed by tEe parties to the arrangement. Personally, Ido not think the arrangement come to can or ought to affect the relative rights of the Natives in any other block, and, on behalf of Erina and Mrs. Mofiatt, I ask that the matter should be left where it is. The Court at Woodville brought a large number of Natives there, where they had to live mostly in hotels at great expense. The settlement of the case saved them, 1 feel sure, a large amount of money, individually and collectively. So far as I could judge as to Hare Rakena's claim, it was mainly an assertion of personal mana. The objection taken by his relatives seemed to me to be substantially borne out by an examination of the lists of names in the various blocks in the district. With the exception of Hare Rakena, who was given every opportunity by the Court to establish his claim in open Court, uo single claimant who attended the Court expressed the smallest dissatisfaction with the agreement, the terms of which were discussed from day to day as we made progress, and were fully understood by all the Natives. I suggest that the Committee should see the evidence of Nireaha Tamaki, given at the instance of the Court, as to Hare Rakena's claim, and indeed the whole minutes of the Court's proceedings. C. B. Moeison. Mr. Myers, Barrister and Solicitor, examined. (No. 2.) 55. The Chairman. ] We shall be glad to hear you in reference to this case, Mr. Myers?—As one of those who have had charge of this case for the Crown throughout the whole of the proceedings, I may perhaps, by a short history of it, be able somewhat to assist the Committee, although I do not think I can assist it very much. The proceedings in regard to this land commenced, I think, in 1893, when Nireaha Tamaki brought an action against the then Commissioner of Crown Lands, in which he claimed that 5,184 acres should be declared to be land owned by the Natives under their customs and usages, and an injunction was claimed against the selling or otherwise disposing of this land. A statement of defence was filed, and certain questions of law were stated for the opinion of the Supreme Court, and removed into the Court of Appeal for argument. The merits of the case were not at that time gone into. The Court of Appeal, in 1894, decided these questions of law in favour of the Crown, against the plaintiff.. Leave was granted to the plaintiff to appeal to the Privy Council upon the usual terms. These terms involved the finding of security for costs. The plaintiff did not proceed with his appeal, but later on he applied ex parte to the Privy Council, through his solicitors, asking for leave to appeal without giving security. That leave was granted in June, 1895, but for many years the plaintiff and those who were associated with him allowed the matter to remain quiescent, and it was not until many years afterwards that the matter came before the Privy Council. The Privy Council reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal on the questions of law. Up to that time you will bear in mind that the merits of the case had not been gone into. Those who were advising the Crown came to the conclusion, and always have beenof opinion, that the Crown had a very good defence upon the merits. They were of opinion that the plaintiff could not establish his claim to this land, but to have proceeded further would have meant the expenditure of an enormous amount of money, and probably another appeal to the Privy Council on the merits; and an arrangement was come to between Tamaki and the Government that the whole claim should be compromised by a payment to those who were entitled to it of a little over £4,000 —£4,566. I think that was really meant to be a payment of £5,000, from which there was to be deducted the amount of costs which the Government had already paid to the Natives through their solicitors in respect of costs awarded against the Government by the Privy Council. An Act was passed in 1901—the Native Land Claims and Laws Adjustment Act—section 27 of which purported to effect a settlement of this action and everything connected with it. Up to that time nothing had been heard of those acting with the claimant, Rewanui Apatari, or any one in this matter, except Tamaki. As soon as that Act was before the House Rewanui Apatari took steps in the Supreme Court to have herself joined with Tamaki, and to take away from Tamaki and give to herself the conduct of the action in the Supreme Court, and she also took steps to have set aside the discontinuance which Tamaki filed under the Act of 1901. The Supreme Court went into the matter and found that others besides Tamaki were interested, and had contributed to the costs of these proceedings, and the Supreme Court set aside the discontinuance. At the same time Ereni te Aweawe commenced a new action, based upon exactly the same facts, and setting out the matters in the same statement of claim as in Tamaki's action. Neither Ereni nor Rewanui nor Nireaha Tamaki took any steps in these proceedings until, in 1903, steps were taken on behalf of the Crown to have these actions disposed of once and for all, and the Supreme Court was moved by counsel for the Crown to set aside these actions. Tn April, 1903, the Chief Justice made an order that if the different plaintiffs did not proceed at once the proceedings in the actions should stand dismissed. Now, none of them, after that order was made, took action in the matter, and so the actions stood dismissed by that order. However, the Government were always willing to effect a settlement with the Natives, which settlement had been prevented by the action of Rewanui and Ereni, the very people who are now objecting to the agreement that

I.—3a

9

was made in Woodville, and a new section was drafted —section 4 of " The Maori Land Claims and Laws Adjustment Act, 1904 " —to overcome the difficulties, which were raised in the Supreme Court in consequence of Rewanui's action in trying to set aside the discontinuance, and the proceedings in the Native Land Court at Woodville were taken consequent on this section of the Act of 1904 having been passed. Now, the Crown took no active part in the proceedings at Woodville. It has confined its part to an endeavour to carry out the provisions of the sections of the statute to which I have referred ; but notice was duly given to the Natives, and I personally attended, under instructions from Mr. Sheridan on behalf of the Government, at Woodville, when the Court sat to investigate these matters. I then explained the position fully to the Judge of the Native Land Court, and everything I said was interpreted by the interpreter. Rewanui and all these other Natives were present. I mentioned the various difficulties that I thought might arise, and I suggested that possibly a conference of the Natives and those representing them might overcome those difficulties The Court, after hearing what I had to say, and after hearing briefly Mr. Morison and others, made various observations upon what I had said, adjourned till the afternoon, I think, and then subsequently adjourned until the following day. I remained in Woodville that day for the purpose of giving any assistance that I could to Mr. Morison, Mr. Fraser, and the others who were representing the Natives. Of course, I am not able to express any opinion one way or the other as to the claim which Rewanui now makes, but I do know this, that Mr. Morison and Mr. Fraser were in consultation all the time I was in Woodville, and that they had constant communications with the Natives whom they were representing. Ido not think I can add anything else which is likely to be useful to the Committee. 56. Rewanui Apatari: Are you certain there were no proceedings in the Supreme Court—no case heard in the Supreme Court which I brought out?— The only proceedings here in the Supreme Court at the suit of Rewanui Apatari are the proceedings to which I have referred, and they would have been heard in April, 1902, as Tar as I can tell from the papers before me. The proceedings were commenced by Rewanui in November or December, 1901. 57. Are you aware that Messrs. Baldwin and Thompson, in the Supreme Court, stated that Nireaha Tamaki was the representative mouthpiece of all of us?—l am not aware that that was stated in the Supreme Court; but it is really immaterial, because the basis at the time of the Supreme Court proceedings was that the action was a representative action, and that Nireaha Tamaki was acting for himself and others. 58. You are thoroughly aware of Nireaha's evidence before the Supreme Court? —Do you mean upon the application to set aside the discontinuance? 59. In the case I had before the Supreme Court Nireaha was a witness?—lt does not matter, because the Court held, as a result of that proceeding, that Nireaha was acting for himself and the others. 60. Supposing we produce the Supreme Court records, and you are confronted with them and shown that Nireaha opposed me?—l know that he opposed you. 61. I want to know what Nireaha represented when he really opposed me?— You do not understand. Up to the time this Act of 1901 was passed, the action was solely in Nireaha's name. Either when this Act came before the House, or immediately after it was passed, Rewanui took steps to have herself joined as plaintiff with Nireaha, and afterwards, when Nireaha signed a discontinuance, she objected, and asked for it to be set aside. The only reason why she could be joined, or why the discontinuance could be set aside, was that she and others were jointly interested with Nireaha, and it was what we call a representative action. Nireaha had others interested with him, and the Court held that the action was a representative action; and that is what I mean when I refer to Nireaha as representing Rewanui and the others. 62. The Chairman.] It appears that Mr. Myers really knows nothing about this agreement. He has merely given us the history of this case? —That is so. 63. You know nothing of that agreement?— No. I was not concerned in it. I was simply standing by in Woodville to inform the Native Land Court of what I knew of the position up to that date. Then it became a contest between the Natives interested and those representing them as to how this money was to be apportioned, and, as I say, the Court adjourned in order to allow them to confer. They did confer, and conferred for a long time; even after I left they were conferring. I did not wait, because I should have been wasting my time and the money of my clients after I had explained the position to the Court. Then, afterwards, this agreement was come to, and an order was made in terms of it. 64. So that in reality you know nothing about the agreement?—No, sir. 65. And there is no necessity for any one to ask you any more questions?—l do not think it is likely to be of any use to the Committee. The reason I was asked to come here was to show the attitude that has been taken up by the Government from the very start. The Crown is waiting to pay out the money. We could not pay it out while the appeal was pending. Those entitled to it will have to sign proper releases before they get it. Rewanui Apatari examined. (No. 3.) 66. The Chairman.'] The Committee is prepared to hear what you have to say?—l want to explain that, after what Mr. Morison has said in regard to the agreement, 1 am going to speak about the land. I presented a petition to Parliament asking that this land should be inquired into and the proper owners ascertained, and also that the names of the persons who had borne the costs of the proceedings in past actions be ascertained. Now, I say that the agreement which was drawn up by the lawyers, agents, and so on present was not drawn up as the result of the inquiry as to who were the present owners of the land, and how they should participate; neither was it definitely inquired into and decided in Court that those were the individuals who had contributed the sums of money stated, and whether the accounts were correct. 2-1. 3a,

1.-3 a

10

67. But you consented to that agreement?—l did not. 68. You did not disagree with it when it was put before the Court? —That does not matter, because I did not quite understand it. If I had known then what I have known since 1 should have objected then. As I stated in the Appeal Court, I object to the persons whose names I gave. Mr. Fraser asked that I should be called and be sworn to give evidence before the Appeal Court, and that I should give my evidence, objecting to those whom 1 have objected to and support those whose rights I have admitted. I did so, and my evidence is contained in the Court minute-book. There will be found the names of all those persons whose rights I have denied and admitted, and the names of the persons who properly expended money during the course of the proceedings, and the people who contributed nothing. But no notice was taken of my statements before the Appeal Court, and the award was made dismissing my appeal, simply because I had neglected on tfiie day when the agreament was before the Court to stand up and object to it. Now, the ancestral right to the land was through Tawhakahiku, commencing from Rangitane, who was the ancestor, and it remained and continued until the time of Te Aweawe. I supported the appeal of my uncle, Hare Rakena, and admitted that he was one of the proper owners of this land. I can explain how the occupation of the land continued from the day of my ancestor down to our own time. All that I was asking for in the Appeal Court was what I still ask for—a Court of inquiry into the rights of this land, as 1 say that Hare Rakeua and I are the proper owners of the land through the ancestral rights of Tawhakahiku. If the Chairman and members of this Committee would like to hear the names of the persons I object to as not coming from the ancestral line I can read them out. It is for the reasons I have now explained that I have presented this petition to this Com"mittee for inquiry, seeing that I lost my appeal. As far as my natural ancestress, Tarake, is concerned, Tarake had no right to this place. Her rights existed in other parts of the land. I think that is all I have to say. Shortly, these are the reasons for my petition, and I think the Committee can very easily satisfy itself that these are the same reasons I advanced in £he Appeal Court. I have nothing further to say. 69. Mr. Hone Heke.] Have you any recollection of signing a paper authorising Mr. Morison to act as your lawyer?—l did not sign any document authorising Mr. Morison to be our lawyer. 70. Do you not remember your mother, sister, and yourself signing a paper authorising Mr. Morison to act for you? —I say truthfully that we did not sign any paper. 71. When the apportionment of the money was made at the Court at Woodville, were you not asked questions by your lawyer at any time as to what your desires were —at the time the arrangement was made? —No, we were kept out by my nephew, Mr. Moffatt; he acted as our interpreter. We were not allowed to approach the Court. He said, " I will arrange it; you are all right." 72. You agreed to what your nephew said? —I agreed in this way: that he was a nephew of mine, and I thought he must be doing what was right; but now I find that he did not do what I wanted in respect to these proceedings. 73. You know that, as a matter of fact, the arrangement eventually arrived at between you was twice read out in Court?—l know it was read out once. I remember the last time it was read out, because there was a dispute between Hare Rakena and Mr. Morison. John Chase was representing Hare Rakena, and the other objected to Hare Rakena, and said he had no right at all. The award was given after —namely, the judgment in the case of Hare Rakena te Aweawe. 74. It is true that you opoosed Hare Rakena in the first Court?— Yes. I will explain why 1 objected. Hare Rakena claimed that he should succeed to Te Peeti te Aweawe.

Tuesday, Bth August, 1905. Examination of Rewanui Apatatu continued. (No. 4.) 1. Mr. Hone 7/eA-e.] What was the name of the ancestor alleged as the owner of the original block at the first Court at Woodville ?— Tawhakahiku was the ancestor to whom the land was awarded in 1871. 2. Was there no ancestor claimed named Tarake?—That ancestor was managed by Mr. Fraser and Mr. Morison. That is the one I object to. 3. Who told Mr. Morison to give Tarake as the ancestor of the land? —I do not know; I did not. I never said anything to him. 4. Which of your people instructed Mr. Morison about your case? —Mr. Moffatt was the man who instructed Mr. Morrison—from what he said. 5. Who instructed Mr. Moffatt in the old history?—He himself knew that Tarake was the wife of Te Aweawe and the mother of Ereni, and Emiri, daughter of Ereni, was his mother. 6. Did you give evidence before the Court at Woodville? —I stood up to deny Mr. Morison'e statements in the case that he and John Chase brought forward. 7. Did you object to Mr. Morison setting up Tarake as the ancestor of the land? —Yes, I did ; but he and Mr. Moffatt made me sit down and not say anything. 8. Did you mention the name of the ancestor Tawhakahiku?—Yes; 1 gave my ancestor, and objected to the ancestor set up by Mr. Morison. The ancestral rights were given in 1871. I know that that was necessary; Tawhakahiku was the ancestor to whom the land was awarded in 1871. 9. Now, if the Woodville Court had confirmed Te Aweawe as the ancestor, Hare Rakena would have been one of those to participate in this money?—lf he had occupied the land, certainly he would have been included. Tawhakahiku was the ancestral right of the land. It was he who had conquered the people on the land, and it was through that ancestor they had been included from 1871,

11

I.—3a

10. Then, why did you oppose Hare Rakena's case at the Court? —Because he partly claimed to be a successor to Te Peeti te Aweawe. 11. You say your reason for objecting to Hare Rakena was because he claimed to be successor to Te Peeti ?—That was his case. His first claim was inclusion in the land, and the conductors would not agree to it. Then he said he would claim to come in as successor to Te Peeti. I objected to him claiming to be successor to Te Peeti, because Te Peeti had a child of his own. 12. Well, did you make any objeotion to his claim for rightful ownership in the land? —No, because he had a right to come in; but the conductors having shut him out, I was not in a position to say anything, because I was not aware of what they were doing. 13. Did you say that Hare had quite as good a right as any of the rest of them? —I have said that Hare was a child of Te Aweawe, and therefore had a right to the land. 14. And you say that Mr. Morison was wrong in setting up the wife of Te Aweawe as having a right to the land?— Yes. She had no .right to this place, but had right to other parts of the land. Mr. Sheridan: The ownership of Kaihinu No. 2 was ascertained by the Native Land Court in 1871, and the subsequent Courts were bound to adopt this ownership, and could not add to it or diminish from it except by bringing in the successors of deceased owners up to that time. These recent Courts did not pretend at all to try the ownership of the land. They adopted and were bound to adopt the order made in 1871. 15. Mr. Hone Heke (to Rewanui).] Has Hare Rakena any right under the Crown grant issued in 1871 to the Kaihinu No. 2 Block?—I think the law has thrown open a means for inclusion, and that those should be put in who were left out by the Court. 16. Mr. Wi I'cre.] Does Hare come in under the descendants originally established? —Yes, if you are asking me about Tawhakahiku. 17. Legislation was passed empowering the Court to deal with this matter, and, as part of the proceedings under that, an agreement was arrived at by certain persons outside the Court? —Yes. 18. Who was the principal man from whom the idea originated?—lt was Mr. Morison, Mr. Fraser, and the other conductors. 19. You must understand that that agreement was the reason why the Court did not carefully inquire into the matter?— Well, they drew up that agreement. lam not responsible for it. 20. The agreement that it is alleged you signed: where is that agreement?-—1 signed my name to no agreement. 21. But it is said that Mr. Moffatt has in his possession an agreement?— Well, his grandmother, Ereni, has been to ask him where tlie document is that we signed, and he said that he did not know. Mr. Wi I'ere: My reason for asking about the agreement is because it has been quoted as governing the whole thing, and as having prevented the Court making the inquiry it was authorised by law to make. The conductors, Mr. Fraser and Mr. Morison, state that it was made by you people yourselves, that you drew up the agreement, and the Court acted upon it. I see there is no such agreement in existence, and it is no good asking anything more about it. 22. Mr. Hone Heke.] You are being asked about the agreement laid before the Court?—l never authorised Mr. Morison to appear. 23. Did you sign the first agreement?—l did not. He never asked me to sign an agreement or anything else. None of us signed. 24. The Chairman.] Was there not an agreement before the Court?— There was, but they alone were responsible for it. 25. That is not an answer to my question. Was there not an agreement before the Court?— That is what they say. 26. I do not want to know what they say; I want to know what you say?—l do not know. All that I know is that there was a list of names that had been written down and were read out — people whom they had found entitled to receive money, they being prominent owners of the land. That I saw read out. 27. You were in the Court at the reading-out?—Yes, at the last reading-out. 28. Did the Judge ask whether there was any Native objection to the agreement?—l did not hear that, because everybody was talking all at once. They were angered about Hare Rakena being put out —that is, Hare, son of Te Aweawe. 29. Did you not object to Hare Rakena being included? —I objected to him being put in as successor to Te Peeti, but not to being put in under his ancestral right. 30. Did you not object to a sum of money—£lo0—being given to him?—l never heard of that £100 ; £50 was what I was told. 31. Did you object to him being paid £50?— I would not agree to Te Peeti's money being paid to him, because Te Peeti had a child of his own. 32. When was the last Court held that this came before? —The 28th February, 1905, and the award was given on the 4th March. The Court was adjourned from the 24th February to the 28th. 33. The decision was given on the 4th March? —Yes. 34. Did the Judge not base his decision upon that agreement?—l did not hear the Court say anything. All the Court did was to agree to the proposals made by the conductors. He did not say anything further. 35. lam speaking of the last Court —the Court of Appeal. On what grounds did they base their decision in the case?— The Court did not read out its decision. It said the Court would not take lono , to decide the case, which would be dismissed, because Rewanui did not stand up and object to the agreement in the first Court, and the whole of the £20 deposit was taken by the Court.

12

I.—3a

Eheni tb Aweawe examined. (No. 5.) 36. The Chairman.] Do you know anything about this petition of Rewanui's?—l have heard it spoken about. 37< Have you seen the petition?— No. 3S. Do you know anything about its contents ? —I do not. 39. Then, what evidence can you give on a petition you know nothing about? —But it was not shown to me. 40. Did you sign it?— No. [Witness's daughter having shown that she was wrong, witness admitted it.] 41. You say you do not know anything about the petition, and yet your signature appears on it. You say you never heard of the petition or anything else?—l thought I was being asked about something else. I was mistaken. 42. You were asked very particularly if you had seen the petition, and you said you had never seen it?— Yes, 1 was mistaken. lam an old woman. 43. You require latitude in that respect, but still you should be careful in what you are saying I —Yes. 44. Now that you say that you have signed the petition you must know something about it? —Yes. 45. Was the petition read over to you before you signed it? —Yes. 46. Then you understand what was in the petition?— Yes. 47. You can state briefly to the Committee anything you know in connection with the sub-ject-matter of the petition ?—Well, the cause of the petition being signed was this, that when my daughter and 1 saw what the award of the Court had been, we realised that we had been injured. No money was given to my brother, Hanita te Aweawe—my younger brother. No money was given to him by the people who arranged the division of the money. Then, again, there was the giving to the six persons only as Crown grantees, and then the dividing-up of the money amongst people who had no right, and people who had not contributed money towards the costs of the appeal in this case. It was for those reasons that I considered we had been injured, because this land is mine from my ancestors and their descendants continually down to my father, down to myself, and down to my daughter. I absolutely and thoroughly know all about this land. Now, as to the arrangement made by the lawyers at Woodville: 1 was not sent for to be consulted —I, the owner of the land. They simply made that arrangement amongst themselves. If 1 had been called upon to consent to that arrangement 1 would have objected to it. I would certainly never have agreed to the moneys derived from my land being distributed amongst people who had no right to the land. These are the principal things to be said, so far as I know. That was why this petition was sent in asking for another inquiry. 48. 'The Chairman.] Is that all?—I think that is enough. 49. Mr. Hone Heke.] Do you know who authorised Mr..Morison to appear as your lawyer for you and others before the Court at Woodville? —It was my grandson who did so. They did not come to us. 50. Now, just listen to me: You remember signing a paper, which was a paper signed by you, retaining Mr. Moiison to represent you in the Court at Woodville? —I do not know that I signed any document before a lawyer authorising the lawyer to appear. 51. Mr. Morison has told the Committee that your grandson, Mr. Moffatt, has the document signed by you people authorising him (Mr. Morison), and that you asked your grandson if it was correct? —I have been to my grandson and asked him for this document so that I might bring it here, and he said he did not know anything about it. 52. Was it while this petition was being inquired into that you went to him about this?— Yes. 53. Who was the ancestor set up in the first Court in 1871 ?—lt was the ancestor who conquered the people on the land. 54. Did you say anything to Mr. Morison about setting up Tarake as ancestor of the land?— This was our mouthpiece [pointing to Rewanui]. I objected to Tarake's name. 55. The Chairman."] Is Mr. Moffatt in town now?—l do not know. 56. Mr. Hone Ileke.] While you were at Woodville, did you attend the meeting where matters were discussed between your people and the pakeha, Mr. Morison, who was said to be your lawyer? —No, I did not. 57. Who was appointed to go with that pakeha lawyer to make this arrangement with him— Mr. Morison? —All that I heard was Mr. Fraser and Morison talking in the Court. 58. I am speaking only of your side? —Only Mr. Moffatt, and he did not know. 59. Did you say anything to Mr. Moffatt about arranging on your behalf with Mr. Morison? —No. I found fault with my grandson, and he said it was all right. 60. Were you in Court when the Judge read out the award upon an agreement which had been arrived at between the conductors? —I did not hear it read out then, but I heard the other final reading-out, and I was not clear about it then. When the award was definitely given I said, " Oh, we have been injured." 61. The Chairman.] Do you say you were in Court when this agreement was read out?— The second reading-out. I did not hear the first one. 62. Were you in any of the Courts when Mr. Morison, the lawyer, appeared?— Yes. 63. Did you know what side he was appearing for?—He was appearing for us at the instigation of my grandson. 64. You knew that? —Well, I found fault with him about it. 65. Did you object to him personally appearing for your side?—l told my grandson outside the Court about it, and he said, " Oh, it is all right—it is quite right," Then, when the decision was given, I saw that we had been injured.

13

L—3a

66. Were you aware that your grandson had engaged Mr. Morison to apear for you?— Yes, I knew; but my daughter and I were not called upon to be present at the arrangement. 67. Then it was without your consent that Mr. Morison appeared for you? —I have said that he was there at the instigation of my grandson. 68. Without your consent?— Yes; I found fault with him. 69. Did you object to Mr. Morison in the Court? —No; but Kewanui was our mouthpiece, and she stood up to protest, but was made to sit down. 70. Were you in Court?--I was there, but I did not know the effect of it until I saw the award, and then I saw that we. had been injured. 71. Were you aware that the agreement was signed in the Court, in the presence of the Judge, by the different conductors? —All that I knew was that it was read out. 72. You heard it read out?—l heard the reading-out of a document, sometimes in Maori and sometimes in English, in an all-together-and-one-after-the-other style, but 1 did not understand it. 73. Did you ask the Maoris anything about it afterwards?— That I do not know. I am an old woman. That is all. Hare Rakena examined. (No. 6.) 74. The Chairman.] Are you the Hare Rakena who presented the petiton in reference to the Kaihinu Block?— Yes. 75. You signed this petition, did you?—lt is my petition. 76. Can j t ou give the Committee any further information in connection with the petition? You have heard the evidence of the previous witnesses?— Yes. I am sending in a petition in regard to this land in the Kaihinu Block No. 2, under the right which I have from the ancestor to whom the land was awarded in 1871, and 1 am asking for an inquiry to be held into this matter under the rights established in that year. The old people being all dead, my sister and myself alone surviving them, I want to obtain a further inquiry under the rights which were established in 1871. Well, I applied for a Court, and got it, and it sat at Woodville, and I stood up there and addressed the Court. In reply to this question of the Court, " Who has the right to this land?" I said, " Tawhakahiku and Mangere." Those were the ancestors under whom the award was given in 1871. However, my claim was not upheld by the Court. Mr. Morison then asked me a question, "Don't you know that Tarake has the right to this land?" I became angry in that Court, and I said this: "Is it asserted that Tarake has a right to this land when it was my father, Te Aweawe, who has the right, and my elder brother, Te Peeti." Mr. Morison having asked me that question, asked another: "Did you not hear of a division made between Tarake and Te Aweawe with regard to the land?" and I replied, "1 did not know." Now, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, then I appealed, because I saw that no notice was taken of what 1 said. Both these two appeals are one. We sat at Hastings. When the Court sat at Hastings my conductor stood up and asked that the claims which I made be heard. This was not done. Both the appeals were dismissed, and the award of the Court at Woodville was confirmed under the agreement between Kewanui and party. I then decided that when this Parliament sat, which is now sitting, I would draw up this petition. That is why I did so, and sent it in to Wi Pere, and this is t"he question you are now dealing with. It will be to my trouble if lam wrong, and if lam not wrong award it to me as I ask. That is what I have to ask before the Chairman and the Committee. 77. Mr. Hone Heke.] Who was your conductor in the first Court at Woodville?—John Chase. 78. What claims were put forward by your conductor in that Court? —One was that I should be included as successor to Te Peeti, and 1 claim £100. 79. Then,- your conductor, John Chase, did not put forward any other claim—your ancestral claim to the land? —I did. My conductor was not competent, because he had been drinking too much, and I had to do the business myself in Court. 80. What did the Court say in its judgment in regard to the case at Woodville under the ancestral claim?— They would not take any notice of ancestral claims. All that they did was in connection with the division of the money. The Chairman: That is all that we should be dealing with now. Mr. Wi Pere : When the Act was framed I myself specially requested that the question of the rights as to who the owners of the land were should be ascertained, but, of course, everybody knew more than I did, and they smothered me, and said it shduld be put in this way and be decided as to who was entitled to the money, giving as a reason that if it was not put in that way the lawyers would get all the money. 81. Mr. Hone Heke (to witness).] Do you remember that before the Court at Woodville there was produced the book of Court records containing this statement: that your father's interests were to be on the Palmerston side and your mother's interests on the Wnirarapa side of the range?—l do not know anything about that. My ancestors had large rights there. If there is any Court record such as that it should be here. 82. Did you not see it at the Woodville Court? —I did not. 83. Did you not hear it read out to you?— Mr. Morison asked me if I did not know of any division of land between Tarake and Te Aweawe as to Tarake's land, and I said I did not know. I required at that time the production of the proof showing thai Wiremu Kingi had made such a statement about the division of these lands, and I want to know where it is to be found. 84. Did you not hear the Judge reading out from any document in the Woodville Court—any decision? —-All that I heard him read out was his award, saying my case was dismissed. Any division such as you refer to I can say nothing about. 85. Did he tell you why the case was dismissed? —I do not know that. 86. What grounds did you put forward in your appeal?—l was appealing for the rights to be investigated. I wanted to know how the people got in who have been put in. This land passed through the Court in 1871 under my ancestors.

I.— Si

14

87. Your appeal was then for an inquiry into the ancestral rights? —Yes. 88. When your ease came before the Court at Hastings it was not entertained by the Judge?— If it had been entertained the question would have been opened. 89. What reason did the Judges of the Appellate Cotirt give for not entertaining your claim? —1 am not sure, but this is my opinion : my belief is that the Woodville Court award was simply made about the money, without any question of ancestral rights. All the other people had no ancestral rights. I was the only one left out. 90. I do not want your private opinion. What did the Judges of the Appellate Court say when giving judgment dismissing the appeal?—l cannot say. I did not hear the explanation. All I knew was that J heard the case was dismissed. When I heard my case was dismissed we came back. The Judge said, " This inquiry has only to do with money—nothing about ancestors." 91. Have you any knowledge of the alleged setting-up or authorisation of Mr. Morison by 3 our sister ?—My sister and I were then opposed to one another. 92. Did you know anything of it?— No. All that I know is that I heard that they were going wrong, but I cannot sift that out. 93. Mr. Wi Pere.] There was nothing said to you about the agreement?— No. 94. All that you know is that you heard it stated that this was simply an inquiry as to the money?— Yes. 95. Did you ask them, " How are you going to find out how you will pay the money?" ?—When I was asked, " What are your rights to this land?" 1 said, " Ancestral, through Tawhakahiku and Mangere." I waited for a further question to be asked me. Well, nothing was asked, and Mr. Morison shut out what I said just now. Mr. Morison was also representing, as I understand now, the parties. Afterwards it seemed that he had not been looking after their interests, and that these people had not agreed or signed their names to Mr. Morison's document. If they had done that they never could have drawn out afterwards. 96. Who was your conductor? —John Chase. 97. Did not John Chase ask any questions?—No, he did not. 98. Did you tell him to ask any? —I did, but he was in that condition that 1 described just now. He was continually doing this [lifting his hand to his mouth], and 1 had to do the business myself. 99. Did you propose the question of going into the rights of the owners as a means of discovering how the money should be divided, so as to see who should be shut out?— That was how I got hold of the phrase " Who was to get the money." I set up the ancestors of those who would, of course, have to show rights, and who had the best rights to the land. 100. Do you not know that this land is simply lying there and has never been investigated? When were the ancestors first ascertained ?—They were always known ever since the day of the conquest. Those were the ancestors by whom the conquest was made. 101. But do you not know that this is a piece of land surrounded by other blocks that have been investigated and awarded to those ancestors, and that this land has never passed the Court?— Yes, that is right. . 102. You say that you know this land was the property of your ancestors?— Yes; I say the land is the property of my father. 103. But it has never passed through the Court? —No, that is correct. 104. That is why you ask that it should be passed through the Court?— Yes. That is why I applied for this hearing. 105. Is Kaihinu the name of the land outside the block?— Yes. 106. And these are the ancestors owning it that you have given?— Yes. You asked me just now if it had passed through the Court, and I said "No," but I knew it was the land of my ancestors. 107. I am asking you now about the laud that has passed through the Court [locality plan referred to]. This block is the centre of the other blocks?—l have not been there to look. Let me say it is at the side. I have not been on the land to see whether it is at the middle or at the end. Let me say it is at the end [position indicated on the plan]. 108. The position is that the surrounding lands to this have passed through the Court, leaving this balance uninvestigated. Did you say that if an inquiry was held, and an amicable arrangement arrived at between the parties as to who should be the persons to receive the money, you would agree?—l would agree if the selection were made of the persons I could agree to. If I saw tEat some were wrong I should want them put out. 109. What some are afraid of is this: that if another hearing is held the whole of the money will be exhausted, and there will be no money left to divide. Would you not agree to some amicable means of settlement? —My reply to that question is this: I want Parliament to finish the matter. Ido not want the Court to do it. 110. Never mind the Parliament —there are many ways of doing it? —I say, Let the Council do it, so as to let it be finished up nicely, amicably, without any further trouble, worry, or annoyance. I have nothing more to say now. I wish to express myself kindly towards the Chairman and the Committee. P. Shbeidan, Native Land Purchase Department, examined. (No. 7.) 111. The Chairman.] Have you anything to say with regard to the statements made by the petitioners? No, except that I am satisfied that Mr. Morison was trying his best to bring about an amicable settlement of this question, and that he was properly retained by the Natives to conduct their case. With regard to the disputed area, the Crown claimed to have purchased the whole of the Kaihinu No. 2 Block in 1872, but the boundary between Kaihinu No. 2 and Mangatainoka

15

I.—3a

Blocks had not been surveyed. Years afterwards a surveyor was sent to cut the dividing-line between these two blocks. He was not acquainted with the locality, and the Natives in the vicinity pointed out to him the line which he cut, and which excluded the land in dispute from Kaihinu No. 2 and threw it into the Mangatainoka Block. Regarded as a portion of Mangatainoka, it would at that time have been in the position of papdtwpu land, as a portion of Kaihinu it would be Crown land, and, although the Crown has never receded from the position first taken up, it is now giving way in order to save any further waste of money in unduly prolonged litigation. For purpose of a settlement, the land is deemed to be a portion of Kaihinu No. 2 Block. The owners of Kaihinu No. 2 Block were ascertained in 1871 by the Native Land Court, and the Court, in dealing with the question under the statutory powers conferred upon it by the Acts of 1901 and 1903, adopted that finding, and admitted no one into the title except such as were entitled to come in as successors to deceased owners of Kaihinu No. 2, as ascertained in 1871. Evidently Hare liakena could not show any right to ownership or right of succession in Kaihinu No. 2 Block under the order of 1871, and that was, no doubt, the reason why the Court shut him out. If this wrangling goes on it must be evident that the whole of the money involved in the case will very soon disappear. Mr. Wi Pere appears to be under the impression that this matter could be settled by some non-statutory process; without an Act of Parliament behind it no valid settlement could be effected. Mr. Wi Pere: Of course the petitioner's reply io my question was very plain. It could have gone to the Council and been settled without any expense. Mr. Sheridan: Mr. Morison, I think, said that Mr. Moffatt had, on behalf of Rewanui and the other petitioner, Erini te Aweawe, retained him to act in the Court at Woodville. The practice amongst the Natives of retaining an agent in writing is not always followed. I was present in Court when the proceedings were opened, and saw each agent stand up and announce the names of his clients. Mr. Morison informed the Court that he represented Rewanui and others. His statement was called out in a loud voice by the interpreter, Mr. L. M. Grace, and no one challenged it, although Rewanui was present in Court. That Mr. Morison was in earnest in his desire to do his best for his clients will be apparent from the fact that from the very first he objected to the Crown being represented or appearing at all in the Court. 112. The Chairman.] On the score of economy?—l suppose so. However, the Judge overruled his objection. Mr. Morison did not want the Crown to interfere at all. The Court was occupied with the case for several days, and Mr. Fraser, Mr. Morison, and Mr. Myers spent a whole night going into the question of unverified accounts concerning which the Natives interested were unable to supply information. As for myself, I could make neither head nor tail of the accounts, and had to give the matter up. Judge Brabant was specially selected to hear the case as a Magistrate of the highest standing, and consequently having a judicial mind and a large experience in dealing with involved accounts and cross-claims. Ido not think it would have been possible to pick out a better man for the purpose. The Appellate Court, consisting of Chief Judge Seth-Smith and Judge Palmer, was equally strong; I do not know where you could get better men for the occasion. I was surprised at the able manner in which the case was dealt with by both Courts. 113. Has any of this money been paid ?— Only a few pounds for expenses to the Natives. Rewanui has had £20. 114. Would not that be an admission on her part that she was agreeable to the settlement?— We do not want to tie her down in that way. She came down here and stayed at a hotel, and I advanced her £20 because I knew that &he was entitled to a large sum of money. I do not want to take any advantage of her on that account. 115. Mr. Berries.] Supposing this matter was opened by statute and the Court considered this land was part of the Mangatainoka Block, these people might be thrown out altogether ?—Yes. 116. Mr. Hone Ileke.] They were also included in Mangatainoka. Is that not so?—I am not aware. 117. Mr. Ferries.] But, in the case of Mangatainoka, was that not brought under the Equitable Owners Act of 1886?— No; it was under the 17th section of the Act of 1867, which provides that the names of all owners shall be placed on the back of the certificate of title. 118. If there was a process to enable this case to be settled by Parliament, would it not, in your opinion, be beneficial to all the parties?— That is what has been done. lam only concerned in paying out the compensation, and matters would be simplified very much for me if you could make an order to pay the entire amount to Rewanui. 119. I mean the beneficiaries in the tribe. Would it not be better if no law were passed at all to settle this matter, but that we should allow the beneficiaries in the tribe to be ascertained?— As to the division of the residue after providing for the costs ? No, the share would be so very small. As to the costs, that is where all the trouble comes in, and tnat is where men with brains are required to decide. The settlement of the costs, at all events, should not be disturbed. 120. You think the costs should be paid according to the award of the Court?— Yes. Mr. Wi Pere: The matter of this land in 1886 or 1885—I do not know which—was placed by me before Mr. Hall and another Minister, and Mr. Ballance and I went into the question, and found that it was land lying unowned, and that the Crown had no right to hold it, because the block had been surveyed on one side and not on the other, and then there was a conveyance by the Maoris of the Tararua mountains above it. There was a lake there —Ngamaea Lake—and the boundary-line ran along that lake. The case which was taken to England related to about 10,000 acres, and when the case was thrown out there and brought back to New Zealand it was kanded over to me that I might probe into matters. I went to the Premier and told him that we must fix up the trouble. He said that the area was 5,000 acres, but I Raid it was 10,000 acres. We argued for some time then, and I said, " If you know mo to be a man who tells lies, then you

I.—3a

16

had better go and look at Mr. Ballance's papers." This land has long ago been arranged by Mr. Ballance to be returned to the Maoris. The mistake now, and that which has confused the position, is the bringing of the action in the Supreme Court. When Mr. Ballance went out of power in 1886 I also lost my seat, and Mr. Carroll came in my place. That is why no law was passed to hand this land back to these people. Then entirely a "new man, who knew nothing about the matter, took the case to the Supreme Court, and this trouble rose up. Now, that is the position. [Mr. Pere here pointed out the various localities on the map.] When 1 explained the matter to the Premier he said, " I never knew you to tell a falsehood." I wanted £2 an acre for the land, and he said 7s. Cd. I said that was far too little. After we had been talking about the thing for some time the Premier raised his offer to 10s. per acre, and then Nireaha said, " Never mind, I will accept it," and I seized my hat and went out of the room enraged because the man was such a fool. I claimed that the Premier should give 10,000 acres to the Rangitane. He said, :< No, give them the money," and I said, " No, hold the money to buy some more land." Now, through this business in the Court the land has been cut up for one person and another, and there is none left. I say there is land left in no other block which has been surveyed, because we have searched through all the blocks. There are records in the Survey Department which distinctly prove that this land has not been surveyed, and the name of the land is Kaihinu, so that it was arranged to state that this land was the property of the ten Crown grantees of Kaihinu No. 2. That is the position with regard to the thing. After this land had been included in the Kaihinu Block we knew perfectly well that the Government would never give any money.

Wednesday, 16th August, 1905. A. L. D. Fbasjbr, M.H.R., examined. (No. 8.) 1. The Chairman.] I understand, Mr. Fraser, that you are prepared to give evidence in connection with this case?— Yes. As the Committee is aware, this investigation is the result of legislation passed by Parliament, as more carefully particularised than is necessary for me to do now by Mr. Myers. Under the Act there was a sum of money to be divided between the parties who had found the funds for carrying on the litigation in connection with Kaihinu No. 2 in New Zealand and in England, and any balance of that amount was to be divided pro rata between the owners of the land. I was retained and appeared for Nireaha Tamaki, the original plaintiff in the actions in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, and Privy Council. On arrival at Woodville, where the Native Land Court sat, Mr. Myers was present on behalf of the Crown, Mr. Morison on behalf of Rewanui Apatari, Ereni te Aweawe, and others. On the Court opening it was suggested by counsel that an adjournment should be given to enable the parties, if possible, to come to a voluntary arrangement instead of going into minute detail as to the ownership of the land, or who were entitled to reimbursement for the expenditure. Mr. Baldwin, who had acted for the Natives in the Supreme Court and Privy Council, was sent for, and asked to produce any accounts that he had. The accounts he produced were the result chiefly of his memory, his books having been destroyed or lost. After spending some two days in the investigation of the records kept by the Natives and a crude balance-sheet Presented by Mr. Baldwin, we found that the costs of the inquiries in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Privy Council amounted to a considerable sum above what Parliament had voted. It was then evident to Mr. Morison, Mr. Myers, and myself that it was necessary to save further expense—to use every means in our power to come to an arrangement by which a certain sum should be set aside to represent the disbursements, and any balance for the owners of the land. Mr. Morison—not in my presence, but he informed me — interviewed his clients with regard to coming to an arrangement, and I interviewed my client, who left everything in my hands connected with any proposed settlement. During the whole of the proceedings he took no part in the arrangements, but gave me entire authority to act for him. After considerable investigation of the accounts, we decided to set aside £1,600 to be divided between the owners of the land, the balance of the sum voted to be refunded to those who had advanced money towards the expenses of the lengthened litigation. Mr. Morison submitted a rough scheme to his clients, so he informed me. Before we went to the Court with the agreement we referred it to three Native agents who were appearing for different sections of the people, and they all agreed to the terms and the list. It was submitted to ihe Court as a draft agreement and read in Court, all the parties agreeing to it with the exception of Hare Rakena, who claimed that he, as an owner of the land, should have a portion of the money set aside for the owners. He admitted that he had not subscribed towards the expenses of the litigation, but still demanded a sum of £100 as his share as representing his interest in the land. The Court adjourned to allow the parties to consider that claim. As it seemed to be the only obstacle in the way of a final settlement, I offered to give £50 towards the £100 if Mr. Morison's clients would give £50. Mr. Morison submitted this proposal to his clients, and they positively declined, denying his (Hare Rakena's) right to participate. We then went before the Court again, and Hare Rakena withdrew all claim to the money, and the Court once more adjourned for the voluntary arrangement or agreement to engrossed, and to be once more submitted to the Court. On resuming, and the agreement being produced, Hare Rakena once more made a claim to participate in the money — this time for a sum of £50. In Court I suggested to Mr. Morison that his people should subscribe £25 and I would subscribe £25, realising that if we coutd terminate the case then there would be much more that £50 saved. Mr. Morison submitted this proposal to Rewanui, but she positively declined to accede to it. On the Court being informed that the parties would not agree to pay the £50, Judge Brabant said he must settle the claim of Hare Rakena on its merits. Hare Rakena was sworn, and gave his full claims to the land, was cross-examined by Mr. Morison, and had

I.—3a

17

every opportunity by his agent or himself to call further evidence, but he declined to do so. Neither Mr. Moiisou nor myself called evidence in rebuttal, but the Judge said he would like to hear Nireaha, the principal, and the Court called him, and Nireaha made his statement. On conclusion of the statement the Court proceeded to give judgment, in which it stated that Hare Rakena had not proved any claim to participate in the money or to ownership in the land, and dismissed the case. The Court then gave instructions for the voluntary arrangement or written agreement to be read out in open Court in English and in Maori. This was done, the English being read by the Clerk of the Court and the Maori translation or interpretation by Mr. Grace. That was the second time that agreement had been read in open Court. When it had been read the Judge asked if there were any objectors present. No voice was raised in objection ; all acquiesced. The Judge then asked Mr. Morison and myself, Kuku Karatiana, John McMillan, Aporo Hare— all of us representing individuals or parties in the case—to sign the agreement in his presence. This was done, the Judge initialling the agreement in witness of our signatures. The proceedings then terminated. Subsequently Hare Rakena appealed and Rewanui appealed. The appeals came before Chief Judge Seth-Smith and Judge Jackson Palmer in the month of June this year. It may have been earlier, but that is not material. Hire Rakena was represented by Tuta Nihoniho; Rewanui was her own counsel. The Court gave them every latitude, being Natives, to lay any grievance they might have before the Court. The case lasted two full days, and at the conclusion the judgment of the Appellate Court was immediately given, the judgment being that the appeals were groundless, and, to quote the exact words of the Chief Judge, as near as I can from memory, " It would be monstrous to ignore the solemn agreement entered into by all the parties—it would be monstrous to allow parties to repudiate it." That is all I have to say, sir. 2. The Chairman (to Mr. Sheridan).] I understand that you wished to be present this morning, and thought that you might probably have some evidence to produce ?—No. I was trying to get the order of the Court in order that it might be embodied in the printed matter, but I cannot get it. I thought it would be better to get it, if possible, in order to make the thing complete. If you had the judgment of the Native Appellate Court I would like it read in in some way, because it would make the paper more complete afterwards when people came to read it. On the file is the decision of the Appellate Court, upholding the judgment of the Native Land Court, but the judgment of the Native Land Court is not there. The Chairman: Consideration of these petitions was postponed last week in order to get Mr. Mofiatt present. It will be remembered that Mr. Morison, when he was here, stated that Mr. Moffatt employed him on behalf of the Natives' petition. In their evidence the Natives denied that statement, and I wrote to Mr. Moffatt asking him, if convenient, to attend the Native Affairs Committee and give evidence, telling him the subject-matter of his evidence, and asking him, if he had any papers on the matter, to bring them with him. In reply, I received yesterday the following letter: — Kaihinu No. 2. Sir, — Palmerston North, 14th August, 1905. In reply to yours of the 11th instant, I beg to state that, having to attend the Magistrate's Court here to-morrow (Tuesday), I cannot come personally to give evidence in this matter as requested. I have submitted what I know in writing relative to the authority, and hope that it is sufficient for the purpose required. Yours, &c, William Mopfatt. The Chairman, Native Affairs Committee, House of Representatives, Wellington. Kaihinu No. 2. 1. Authority to act. —This document was signed by the following Natives, authorising C. B. Morison to act as counsel for them in the Kaihinu case, heard at Woodville: (1) Rewanui Apatari; (2) Ereni te Aweawe; (3) Kerei te Panau; (4) Miriama Pc Rangi; (5) Mananui te Ra. The authority was written by me in Maori on a letter-paper at WoodvilJe prior to the Court proceeding in the case, and signed by them after being satisfied with the contents, and witnessed by me. 2. The authority expressly gave Mr. Morison full power in all respects to act for them in this case. 3. That I have mislaid the said document, and have made exhaustive search in my office, but without success. I will produce it as soon as I find it. 4. Mr. Morison's appointment to act was also followed by another document written by me in Maori wherein the same Natives agreed to pay his retaining-fee out of the proceeds. This was signed by them and witnessed by me. This document is attached to the lost authority. 5. That all suggestions as to a settlement made by Mr. Morison with the other agents were duly explained and interpreted by me to Rewanui Apatari, who was recognised by the others interested with her as their mouthpiece, and agreed to by her before being given effect to. 6. That these Natives cannot deny the authority, and furthermore that Ereni te Aweawe a few days ago called on me and demanded delivery of it to her if in my possession. 7. That throughout the whole of the proceedings Mr. Morison's authority was never disputed. 8. That Rewanui Apatari herself, after the judgment of the Native Land Court was read in the Court, congratulated the Court on having settled this case in a very satisfactory manner. William Moffatt, Licensed Interpreter, 14th August, 1905. Palmerston North. 3—l. 3a.

I.—3a

18

Okdee made by Judge Brabant, at Woodville, on the 4th day of March, 1905, ascertaining and declaring che Persons entitled to the Compensation payable in respect of Kaihinu No. 2 (Ngamaea) Block, under Section 27 of "The Native Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act, 1901," and Section 4 of " The Maori Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act, 1904." In the Native Land Court, Wellington District. In the matter of section 27 of an Act of the General Assembly of New Zealand intituled " The Native Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act, 1901," and of section 4 of an Act of the General Asembly of New Zealand intituled " The Maori Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act, 1904." At a sitting of the Native Land Court, duly notified and held at Woodville on the 4th day of March, 1905, before Herbert William Brabant, Esq., Judge, and Eruera Nikitini, Assessor, the said Court having duly proceeded to ascertain who were the former owners or their successors according to Native custom of the land described in the First Schedule to "The Native Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act, 1901," other than Nireaha Tamaki, who contributed through him, or with his knowledge and consent, to the costs of the action No. 5496 referred to in the above-mentioned Acts, and, after hearing all persons claiming to be the former owners or their successors according to Native custom of the said land, and after hearing all persons claiming to have contributed as aforesaid to the costs of the said action No. 5496 and the evidence adduced by them respectively, it is ordered and directed that the sum of two thousand nine hundred and sixty-six pounds (£2,966) be and the same is hereby deducted and set aside from the sum of £4,566 mentioned in the said section 27 as a sum sufficient for the payment of all costs incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the prosecution of the said action. And it is hereby further ordered that the said sum of £2,966 shall be paid to the persons named in the first column of the First Schedule hereto in the respective amounts set opposite to the names of the said persons in the second column of the said First Schedule hereto respectively. And it is hereby ascertained and declared that the persons who were the former owners or their successors according to Native custom of the said land are the persons whose names are set forth in the first column of the Second Schedule hereto, and that the proportionate share or interest of each such person in the said land is indicated by the parts of the sum of £1,600 (being the residue of the said sum of £4,566 after deduction of the sum sufficient for payment of costs as aforesaid) stated in the second column of the Second Schedule hereto and set opposite to the names of the said former owners or their successors respectively, and that each of such former owners or their successors is entitled out of the said residue to the sum of money so set opposite to their names respectively as aforesaid. As witness the hand of Herbert William Brabant, Esq., Judge, and the seal of the Court. [Seal.] H. W. Brabant, Judge. Affirmed on Appeal. —H. G. Seth-Smith, Presiding Judge. 24/6/1905.

The First Schedule hereinbefore referred to.

I ' No. The First Column. The Second Column. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Lβ 17 Ereni te Aweawe Rewanui Apatari Kerei te Panau Miriama te Rangi Maihi Hangina Nireaha Tamaki Karepa Waata Erina Nini Ngawhiro Marakaia Erina Rangiputara Mere Ngawhiro Pirihira Tatere Wharepuni Heta, m., 12 years .. Keita Heta, f., 10 years Wharengaro Heta, m., 8 years .. Akenehi Heta, f., 7 years Wikitoria Heta £ s. d. 648 10 5 322 0 5 165 4 7 179 14 7 605 12 3 411 10 0 122 10 0 81 15 0 81 15 0 124 17 9 55 15 0 55 15 0 22 4 0 22 4 0 22 4 0 22 4 0 22 4 0 Total £2,966 0 0

19

I.—3a

The Second Schedule hereinbefore referred to.

Approximate Cost of Paper.— Preparation, not given; printing (1,460 copies), £12 Is.

By Authority: John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9os. Price 9d.}

0. The First Column. The Second Column. 1 ■2 3 4 5 Ereni te Aweawe Ereni te Aweawe and Rakiwhata Peeti, as successors to Peti te Aweawe Ereni te Aweawe and Rangi Mawhete, as successors to Hanita te Aweawe Rewanui Apatari, as successor to Poitete Irihapeti Mahuri Kie Mahuri Ahenata Mahuri Mananui Mahuri As successors to Kararaina Mahuri. Hemara te Whetu Tamihana Wereta Horomona Ratima, m., 18 years Ani Ratima, f., 11 years Te Wehe te Tue, m., 5 years Te Orangatira te Tue, f., 3 years Urapane Horiana Rahira Mohi Heremaia Maika As successors to Hemi Warena. Waata Tohu Maihi Hangina, as successor to Huru te Hiaro Nireaha Tamaki Nireaha Tamaki, as successor to Wi Tauko Erina Nini Ngawhiro Marakaia Amiria Hanita Mereana Heremaia Ani Marakaia As successors to Marakaia Tawaroa. Haeata Henare ToiTamati .. Katerina Wi Waka Korou Nini Iraia Tamati As successors to Henare Manukihuki. Waari Wi Tinitara Tiripa Wi Tinitara Kawana Wi Tinitara .. ... Rimene Wi Tinitara .. .. .. Te Ahi Kowhai Wi Tinitara Himiona Haratiera Hakaraia Haratiera Rawinia Hamuera As successors to Wi Tinitara. Hapeta Whakamaiuru Ihaia Whakamaiuru Taraipine Pou Manihera Mere Elers As successors to Irihapeti Whakamaiuru. Kuku Karaitiana Ihakara Karaitiana Tore Ratima, m., 16 years Te Uru Wahoterangi, f., 13 years Te Turuki Wahoterangi, m., 4 years Te Retimana Arawhita, f., 18 years Te Noho Arawhita, f., 4 years Pirau Arawhita, f., 7 years Komihana Mokau, m., 11 years As successors to Karaitiana Korou. Ema Meihana Heeni Meihana As successors to Hoani Meihana. £ s. d. 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 11 2 3 11 2 3 11 2 2 11 2 3 11 2 2 11 2 3 11 2 2 11 2 3 11 2 3 7 8 9 10 II 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 12 10 0 12 10 0 25 0 0 12 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 12 10 0 12 10 0 12 10 0 12 10 0 12 10 0 12 10 0 12 10 0 12 10 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 6 13 4 6 13 4 6 13 4 6 13 4 6 13 4 6 13 4 20 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0