NATIVE LAND CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1910: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION No. 258/10, RELATIVE TO NUKUTAURUA BLOCK.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1912 Session I, G-14e

G.—l4e

Session I. 1912. NEW ZEALAND.

NATIVE LAND CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1910: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION No. 258/10, RELATIVE TO NUKUTAURUA BLOCK.

Laid before Parliament in compliance with Subsection (i.) of Section 28 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1910.

Native Land Court (Chief Judge's Office), Wellington, 28th November, 1911. The Hon. the Native Minster, Wellington. Nukutaurua Block. Pursuant to section 28 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1910, 1 referred to the Native Land Court for inquiry and report the petition of Naterua te Ngaio and others in respect of the above block. 1 enclose report herewith, and beg to recommend that the Native Land Court be empowered to ascertain the equitable owners and make orders accordingly. Jackson Palmer, File N. 4774 also enclosed. Chief Judge. In the Native Land Court of New Zealand.—ln the matter of a petition (No. 258/10) of Materua te Ngaio and others regarding the Nukutaurua Block. The Chief Judge, Native Land Court. This matter having been referred by your Honour to the Native band Court for inquiry and report, I beg to report as follows :— 1. The matter was heard in open Court at Nuhaka on the 11th November, 1911, due notice of the sitting having been given. 2. The title of the Nukutaurua Block was investigated and an order made in favour of nine grantees on the 19th February, 1867. 3. The evidence then given includes the following: "This land has been in the possession of our tribe for generations. Our fathers lived and cultivated on it. We are occupying it now. Our title is not disputed. The grantees we propose are," &c. 4. Speaking some years later, to wit, on the partition of the block in 1891, Ihakara Waipakiaka thus detailed the circumstance of the selection of the grantees : " The Court told the Natives to go outside and arrange who should go into the title as trustees for the owners. Hirini Maru, who gave the evidence on the original hearing, showed me a list with seven names on it. I added mine, and he showed it to Campbell, who pointed out that Ihaka Whanga's name was not included. I said I did not see why his should be there, but Campbell overruled my objection, and Ihaka's name was added. I thought it was all right, being new to the Court. Ihaka wrote his name at my request on the list, but he asked me what it was for, and I told him it was the list for this block," &c. 5. The same Ihakara Waipakiaka, who was a grantee, had written to the Chief Judge in the year 1874 desiring a reopening of the case, that he might point out who should and who should not be in the grant. 6. In the year 1889 the matter came before the Native Land Court under the provisions of the Native Equitable Owners Act of 1886. It was apparently then assumed that the grantees were trustees, as lists of the beneficial owners were made and accepted by the Court, whilst other lists which were disputed were fought out on the basis that they were not entitled to become beneficial owners. No objection was, as far as can be gathered from the Court records, made on behalf of the grantees—in fact, the Hirini Maru who gave evidence on the first hearing was the one who

In the Native Land Court of New Zealand. —In the matter of a petition (No. 258/10) of Materu.i te Ngaio and others regarding the Nukutaurua Block. The Chief Judge, Native Land Court. This matter having been referred by your Honour to the Native Nand Court for inquiry and report, I beg to report as follows :— 1. The matter was heard in open Court, at Nuhaka on the 11th November, 1911, due notice of the sitting having been given. 2. The title of the Nukutaurua Block was investigated and an order made in favour of nine grantees on the 19th February, 1867. 3. The evidence then given includes the following: "This land has been in the possession of our tribe for generations. Our fathers lived and cultivated on it. We are occupying it now. Our title is not disputed. The grantees we propose are," &c. 4. Speaking some years later, to wit, on the partition of the block in 1891, Ihakara Waipakiaka thus detailed the circumstance of the selection of the grantees : " The Court told the Natives to go outside and arrange who should go into the title as trustees for the owners. Hirini Maru, who gave the evidence on the original hearing, showed me a list with seven names on it. I added mine, and he showed it to Campbell, who pointed out that Ihaka Whanga's name was not included. I said I did not see why his should be there, but Campbell overruled my objection, and Ihaka's name was added. I thought it was all right, being new to the Court. Ihaka wrote his name at my request on the list, but he asked me what it was for, and I told him it was the list for this block," &c. 5. The same Ihakara Waipakiaka, who was a grantee, had written to the Chief Judge in the year 1874 desiring a reopening of the case, that he might point out who should and who should not be in the grant. 6. In the year 1889 the matter came before the Native Land Court under the provisions of the Native Equitable Owners Act of 1886. It was apparently then assumed that the grantees were trustees, as lists of the beneficial owners were made and accepted by the Court, whilst other lists which were disputed were fought out on the basis that they were not entitled to become beneficial owners. No objection was, as far as can be gathered from the Court records, made on behalf of the grantees —in fact, the Hirini Maru who gave evidence on the first hearing was the one who

G.—l4e

2

in the Court of 1889 claimed they were trustees. The matter was not, however, completed, because the Court had been informed that there had been a sale which would possibly bar its jurisdiction, and on the 24th March, 1889, there is a note that the application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, part of the land having been sold. 7. For some reason the Chief Judge caused several applications to be renotified, and they were dismissed for non-appearance in January, 1893, the explanation being given that at that time the Natives were objecting to attend the Native Land Court. Some of the same applications were dealt with a third time in 1896, when they were dismissed on the ground that part of the land was sold. 8. It would appear from proceedings taken in the Supreme Court respecting the adjoining blocks that, as restrictions were not properly removed, there was no valid sale at the time the applications were first dismissed. Eventually these sales came before the Validation Court for validation, the result of those proceedings being that all the former partitions of the block were cancelled, and that Court divided the land into three parts —Nukutaurua No. 1, vested in Carroll and Wi Pere, and since sold to Ormond; Nukutaurua 6b, vested in a Native and since sold to Ormond; and Nikutaurua Nos. 2 and 3, vested by the Native Land Court in the Native grantees entitled, subsequently divided into five portions, one of which, Nukutaurua 2a and 3a, have been sold to Ormond. It is no doubt this latter sale that the petitioners refer to in their petition. The area left unsold of the block amounts to about 885J acres, distributed among four divisions with about thirteen owners. The Court has been unable to ascertain whether these owners have alienated or improved the portions so allotted to them. 9. There is a strong prima facie case in favour of the grantees being trustees for themselves and others, and the Court is satisfied that all the owners of the land were not included in the title. The Court is likewise satisfied that the Natives did what they could to get the matter reopened in the earlier days, and on its face the title is one that the Natives are entitled to have reopened. There were, however, several blocks put through at the same time and under similar circumstances, and the reopening of one is bound to lead to applications of a similar nature. The question of what should be done is therefore rather one of policy than otherwise, on which it would be better for the Court to express no opinion. For the Court. 25th November, 1911. R. N. Jones, Judge.

Approximate Cost o1 Paper.— Preparation, not given; printing, (1,400 copies), £1 10s.

Authority : John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9l2.

Price 3d.]