G.—B

6

14 acres and 10 acres; 20 acres out of the 30-acre piece having been dropped. There is nothing in the official papers to account for this apparent departure from the Governor's orders. I cannot find any authority for the Government to make this grant, and it has not been shown that it was ever validated. Meurant received it, but did nothing with it. Indeed he could not have done anything with it, for his estate was cut down to a life estate. Thus Meurant lost in quality, and his wife in quantity; and the Governor issued a grant which he was not competent to issue. I cannot suppose that any voluntary arrangement could be based on such conditions. The idea of a compact, or voluntary compromise, has no support from facts or records. Immediately after this Meurant went to Sydney, whence he returned in 1849. The Government put up the omitted portions of land for sale. A protest was made on behalf of Meurant. At this time the Native title had not been acquired by the Government. There were no bidders. The Government purport to have extinguished the Native title by means of a conveyance from Te Keene to Her Majesty, for £15, of (amongst other lands) the piece omitted from the grant. Te Keene was, however, not an owner. He had no claim whatever over the land (see his own evidence in the Orakei case) ; and if he had any, he had already transferred his interest by deed to Kenehuru, as he acknowledges himself, in letter ante. This was admitted by the learned counsel on both sides, who fortunately were in the Orakei case. I am not aware that the Government have anything to rely upon for the extinguishment of the Native title over the 20 acres, balance of the 30 acres, except this deed, for which purpose (or for any other) it is quite valueless. The Native title is still in Kenehuru. Subsequently, the omitted land was all sold by the Government, and the proceeds retained by it. Prom the time of Meurant's return from Sydney* he has objected to the grant, and has endeavoured for his wife to obtain compensation for the loss of land, and he has not succeeded. He is now dead, leaving Kenehuru surviving him (now a lunatic), and several children. In my opinion the following points are established : — 1. Meurant ought to have got his grant for the 14 acres in 1844 upon the terms of the Proclamation, and Government can take no credit for issuing it in 1848. 2. The grant of the 14 acres, when' issued, was of less value than it should have been, for it was in strict settlement, instead of in fee, as he was entitled to claim, and did claim in 1844. 3. The 30 acres was effectually given to Kenehuru by the Native owners, and, except as to sales made by her, is, or equitably should be, hers now, with a perfect title according to the Native custom. 4. The Governor was not at all bound to give Kenehuru a Crown grant for the 30 acres, nor had he any lawful authority to do so, except through a circuitous process under the Native Keserves Acts (which did not pass until 1856), and under these Acts it was entirely optional with the Governor. 5. Kenehuru had a right to a grant when the Native Land Act, 1865, was passed. From that time she would have a right to change her Maori title into a legal one under Crown grant. The result, therefore, is that Meurant had a right to a grant in fee of the 14 acres in 1844, and Kenehuru to a grant of 30 acres in 1865, with the deduction from the 14 acres of the one-tenth stipulated for by the Proclamation, and less 10 per cent, on the value of the 30 acres under the Land Act. The amount, therefore, will stand thus (the valuations are from the evidence) : — Due by Meurant's Estate. Due to the Meurant's Estate. 10 per cent, on the 13 acres 3 roods 10 per- ~) £ s. d. The value of the balance of the 30") £ s. d. ches, which should have been deducted in ( „-„ ~, „ acres, viz. 19 acres 2 roods, @ £150per > 2,925 0 0 terms of the Proclamation of 1844, 1 acre f acre, £2,925 3 1 rood 21 perches, @ £258 6s. per acre J Less 10 per cent, under Native "\ Further charge of 10s. an acre on 12 acres \ 64 3 Land Act) £292 lOs-) an(* Bay £W [ 302 10 ° 1 rood 29 perches 3 cost of survey J 10 per cent, which would have been due^ under " The Native Lands Act, 1865," on £1,657 10s., the value of the 11 acres 8 per- t- 170 15 0 ches (part of the 30 acres) granted to Meurant, and Court fees J £533 14 9 £2,622 10 0 Amount that should be paid, £2,088 15s. 3d. In conclusion, I only desire to state that many points in the case that have been controverted in the papers before me I have not noticed, thinking that they in no way affect the question; such as Meurant's misrepresentation to the Executive Council, his charge against a Government officer of suppressing a letter, the marriage of Kenehuru with a European, as to its effect on her land, and many others. I also desire to add that Mr. MacCormiek's main argument was directed to proving that it was a serious mistake to entertain the question of redressing wrongs done by a Government (if any) at all; and that to compensate private persons for the consequences of errors (if any) made by former Governments was a principle full of danger. I did not think it my duty to consider this question, believing it to be one peculiarly and solely for the discretion of Parliament. P. D. Fekton. * " The Colonial Treasurer, Auckland. —I hereby protest against your selling the allotments numbered 28 and 35 in the list of allotments for sale this day, as proclaimed in the Government Gazette of the 31st October, 1849, the same not being the property of the Crown, but part of an allotment of 30 acres 2 roods 8 perches, conveyed to my wife, Eliza Meurant, by deed, bearing date 6th April, 1847, by the parties therein named, the then owners thereof, and the same allotments being ow her property. —Dated this 3rd day of December, 1849. —E. Meubaki."