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

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

Vide infra. Appendix D.

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

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

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

11

P.—No. 6.

ON NATIVE LANDS BILL.