G.-3.

assuming the transaction to have been done with a view of affecting the Assessor's judgment in the interest of any of the parties. Whether that was so or not I do not know, nor have I power to sift the matter. Fortunately that is immaterial, for without asserting anything against anyone, I shall, for the business in hand, assume that the monetary business, whether loan or gift, was intended by Mr. Moon to affect the Assessor's mode of dealing with his judicial duties. Now, ought I to grant a rehearing by reason of the matters alleged, either as to the wife and children or the money? I think not, for lam satisfied that substantial justice is done by the decision. In entertaining that opinion, I assume the Court was right, for the reasons already mentioned, in deciding against the claimants, for otherwise the judgment is radically bad. Perhaps the most energetic applicants for a rehearing is Ngatihaua, hut their objection is to the division only, and they candidly put it "so sure are we that the main judgment is correct, and must be followed, that to further a rehearing in respect to the division we will join in a cry for general rehearing." I have already expressed an opinion against the husband of a person interested acting as Assessor, and my unfavourable view of the pecuniary transaction; but, however much the circumstances are to be regretted, and however unfavourably they may be looked upon, I still do not think it would be right to entail upon all the parties (one only —if one —guilty, the rest innocent) the trouble, and loss-of time and money consequent on a new trial, and upon the country the enormous cost of a repetition of such a lengthened hearing. It would be much easier for me to grant a rehearing on the circumstances than to refuse it, but in so doing I should be consulting my own convenience instead of taking the responsibility of doing what I helieve to be my duty to the parties and the colony. (I.) There only remains for consideration this allegation. lam of opinion that an injustice was done in the exclusion of the names of Hera Nikora and of her sisters from the Ngatihaua list of names, and that they were unfairly dealt with, and to the extent of inquiring whether their names should or should not have been inserted as owners in such list, a rehearing ought to be had. Apart from the purposes of the matter in hand—although it is not for me to consider the action of the Assessor—l shall feel it my duty to forward to Government a copy hereof.

Enclosure No. 1. Judgment of the Court on the Maungatautari Case, Delivered at Kihikihi on sth September, 1884, by Chief Judge Macdonald and Judge Puckey. The application which the Court elected to take in deciding the title to this block of land was that made by Rewi Maniapoto and others, as the plan before the Court had been made at their instance, containing an area of 49,450 acres. The prima facie case was made by calling Ngata, who claimed that the land belonged to his ancestor, Raukawa, and that it had been held by his descendants to the present time without interruption; he also admitted the right of certain other hapus, also that a portion of the block belonged exclusively to Koroki and Kapu. Mr. H. Teimana, who claimed under the claimants, appeared for them. Counter Claimants. —On counter claimants being challenged, there appeared no less than thirty persons who claimed to be entitled, some to the whole block, others to part only. The Court therefore adjourned to enable parties to coalesce with a view to shorten the proceedings, and render them less complicated. On the Court resuming, it was found that, by coalition of parties, the number of counter claimants was reduced to—(1.) Ngatikauwhata and Matau, represented by Hori Wirihana. (2.) Ngatikoroki, &c., for whom Atutahi Hone appeared, and later on Karaka Tarawhiti. (3.) Ngatikoura, under Te Hakiriwhi, latterly conducted by Kaukiuta. (4.) Ngatikoura, Ngatiparehaehaeora, and Ngatiraukawa, represented by Te Puke Huirama. (5.) Ngatiapakura and Ngatihinetu, represented by Mr. William Swanson. (6.) Ngatihaua, which included Ngatihourua, &c, for whom Haimona Patara appeared. (7.) Ngatihourua and Kauwhata, represented by Wiremu te Whitu. (8.) Ngatitakihiku, represented by Aperahama te Rangitutia, who, soon after the commencement of proceedings, joined the claimants, leaving seven distinct counter claimants. (1.) Hori Wirihana, by his witnesses, claimed that the whole block belonged to his ancestor, Kauwhata, originally, and that his ancestral title thereto had never been destroyed, but he also claimed to have a title by conquest of Marutuahu at Taumatawiwi; but though admitting that Raukawa, an ancestor contemporary with Kauwhata, was also an owner of this block, he was not able to point out to the Court which part belonged properly to Kauwhata, and it is rather a significant fact that not one amongst all the witnesses called was able to inform the Court on this point. (2.) The Ngatikoroki witnesses claimed that after the migration of the main body of Ngatiraukawa to Kapiti and Taupo, Marutuahu, who had been driven out of their own country by Ngapuhi under Hongi, took and occupied Maungatautari, and that as they by force of arms had driven away such of the Natiraukawa as had till then retained possession they acquired the mana of the land ; that disputes and quarrels took place between Ngatikoroki and Marutuahu, which culminated in the battle of Taumatawiwi, when Ngatihaua and its allies defeated Maratuahu,

3