9

A.—sa

Arundell in connection with the Otautu Eeserve since the transaction of 1879, when he took part in the preparation of the agreement then executed in Mr. Cowern's office. Yet his name actually appears as witness and interpreter to the second agreement of 1880. How could all the parties concerned, who profess to remember the minutest facts connected with the alleged agreement of 1879, even to the colour of the paper on which it was written, so entirely ignore and forget the agreement of 1880, in the execution of which there is the evidence of their own handwriting to show that they took part ? 2. The agreement of September, 1880, exactly corresponds in all particulars but one (the alleged signature of Pawhare) with the description given by Messrs. Cowern and Wallace of the agreement of 1879. It is on "blue paper," and in Mr. Cowern's handwriting, and signed by Messrs. Eoss and Taurua as parties, and Wallace as witness and interpreter. 3. The only conclusion at which I can arrive is that, though negotiations for an extended lease may have been entered into in June, 1879, they were not concluded, at least no formal agreement was entered into, till 3rd September, 1880, when the agreement of that date was executed, in Mr. Cowern's office, and then witnessed and interpreted by Mr. Wallace, who declares that only on one occasion was he employed by Messrs. Eoss and Arundell. It is not impossible that, in a protracted negotiation, which this appears to have been, the whole of the parties, though tolerably correct in their recollection of facts, may have forgotten the dates when they occurred. But it is remarkable that none of the declarants —all of whom, except Taurua, are men of business, and two of whom (Messrs. Cowern and Wallace) most probably received fees or commission for their action in the matter —make any reference to entries in their business books, which might afford better evidence than their mere recollection of certain things being done at supposed dates. Such facts as the payment of commissions or fees, the precise date of Pawhare's death, the time when the bonus of £100 was paid to Taurua, ought to be on record and easily ascertainable from office diaries or other similar sources. 4. As the matter stands I cannot arrive at any other conclusion (consistent with the belief which I entertain in the good faith of all the parties concerned) than that the agreement of the 3rd September, 1880, is the only one which ever existed, and that the confusion of the date of its execution with that of the preliminary oral negotiations conducted in 1879 has led the gentlemen who have made these declarations into the singular error which evidently exists. 5. But, even if the existence of the agreement of 1879 could be proved, I could, not, in conformity with the provisions of " The West Coast Settlement Eeserves Act, 1881," recommend it for confirmation unless it were actually produced. In order to enable the Governor to confirm a lease, or an agreement in the nature of a lease, he must have it before him : he cannot write his confirmation on a file of affidavits or declarations by which it is attempted to account for its nonappearance. It is with much regret, therefore, that I feel bound to decline to recommend the confirmation of the alleged agreement. William Fox, 15th January, 1884. West Coast Commissioner.

APPENDIX VII. Eepoiit on the Case of Eehara Hami's (otherwise Eehara Puanu's) Grant in respect of two Awards of the Compensation Court in favour of herself and her father, Heini Puanu, deceased. The Commissioner has already reported (29th June, 1882, G.-oc, Schedule, No. 14) upon a claim preferred by Nevil S. Walker as purchaser from Eehara of these awards for the price of £400, to be increased to £500 on a contingency which has since occurred (the allocation of the land awarded at a defined place). Mr Walker having at the date of his alleged purchase paid only £20, I declined to recognize any interest in him beyond a right to have that amount refunded before the grants should be handed to Eehara. Notwithstanding my decision Mr. Walker shortly afterwards sold his interest in these awards to Mr. Thomas Bayly for £1,000, subject to the payment by Mr. Walker to Eehara and her husband, Eruini te Eangiirihau, of the purchase-money agreed upon between them and Mr. Walker. A deed to give effect to this transaction was prepared by Mr. Bayly's solicitors, and was executed by Eehara and her husband; but not by either Mr. Walker or Mr. Bayly, although it contains covenants on behalf of the former, and acknowledgments of the payment and. receipt of the various sums of money. The amounts of consideration to be paid to the Native vendors are left blank, as are also the names of the districts in which the allotment is said to be and the boundaries of the allotment itself, and the latter are said to be delineated on a plan drawn thereon, which is not there. Then follows a power of attorney to T. Bayly authorizing him to sign all deeds, transfers, &c, necessary to vest the said lands in himself. I understand from Mr. Bayly's solicitor that the latter has paid £800 to Mr. Walker, who is supposed to have paid £200 of it to Eehara and her husband, of which, however, no proof lias been offered to me, and that Mr. Bayly retains £200 towards the payment of the balance of the purchasemoney due to Eehara when Crown grants shall have been issued and handed to him. On the 26th June, 1883, Eehara Hami made a will, duly executed according to English law, whereby, after reciting her sale to Walker and his sale to Bayly, and that she was desirous of completing the title of the latter, she devises to him in fee all her interest in the said grants of land, and appoints him her executor. This will was prepared by Mr. Bayly's lawyers and taken to Eehara, in the absence of her husband, by Mr. Bayly, and Mr. Elliott, one of the attesting witnesses, accompanied by George Stoqkman as interpreter. When signed Mr. Bayly took possession of it and kept it, which, it may be presumed, is the reason it was not destroyed when it was subsequently revoked. On the 6th of August, 1883, however, by another will, she cancelled the first, and devised the land to her daughter Patuone Eehara and to her husband Eruini te Eangiirihau, without appointing any executors. On the 28th August, 1883, by an " addition" to this last will she 2—A. sa.