7

L—s

No. 404.—Petition of William Steen. Petitioner prays for compensation relative to land. I am directed to report that the Waste Lands Committee has no recommendation to make upon this petition. 22nd August, 1894.

No. 413.—Petition of T. J. Powell and 28 Others. Petitioners pray that a certain block of land between Matakana and Te Arai be secured and opened for settlement by the Government. I am directed to report that the Waste Lands Committee is of opinion that this petition should be referred to the Government for their consideration. 22nd August, 1894.

No. 441.—Petition of H. J. Saulbeey. Petitionee prays for the reduction of his rent of section in the Parish of Horotiu, Auckland. I am directed to report that the Waste Lands Committee is of opinion that this petition should be referred to the Government for their consideration. 22nd August, 1894.

No. 412.—Petition of David L. Muedoch and 2 Others. Petitionees pray that they may be empowered to refer their claim re Kaite Estate to the Validation Court, now sitting in Gisborne, for a report thereon. I am directed to report that the Waste Lands Committee is of opinion that this petition should be referred to the Government for their consideration. 23rd August, 1894.

Nos. 459 and 484.—Petitions of Valentine Blageove and Eyael Fosbeoke. Petitionees'pray for grants of land for military services. I am directed to report that the Waste Lands Committee is of opinion that these petitions should be referred to the Government for their consideration. 29th August, 1894.

No. 410.—Petition of A. E. Coenes. Petitionee claims 40 acres of land under the Waste Lands Act. I am directed to report that the Waste Lands Committee has no recommendation to make on this petition. 30th August, 1894.

No. 79.—Petition of L. W. Daeeymple. Petitionee prays for freedom of access to her land. I am directed to report that the Waste Lands Committee is of opinion that this petition should be referred to the Government, as it has been proved to the Committee that the land referred to was granted by the Crown showing a road-line to the beach. The road-line has been occupied by one having no title to do so, so as to prevent the petitioner having proper access to her land. The public are also debarred from using the road to its proper width. I) nder these circumstances the Committee are unanimously of opinion that the Government should take steps to have the trespasser removed from the road. 30th August, 1894.

No. 405.—Petition of John Geanville and 28 Others. Petitionees pray for the revaluation of the rents of their sections in Mangamingi Block. I am directed to report that the Waste Lands Committee is of opinion that this petition should be referred to the Government for their favourable consideration. 30th August, 1894.

No. 66. —Petition of Feancis Cherry, of Auckland. Petitionee prays for an inquiry into the circumstances connected with the Supreme Court case of Francis Cherry and William Snook and Emma Snook, which was heard at Auckland on the sth and 6th days of June, 1893, and for such redress as the circumstances may require. 1 am directed to report that the Waste Lands Committee is of opinion that this petition should be referred to the Government for their consideration. The petitioner complains that roads have been forced through his lands, and no compensation offered to him. He has been an unsuccessful litigant in the Supreme and Appeal Courts, the Courts deciding that his conduct amounted to a dedication of one of the roads mentioned—namely, the road to the bridge used by the general public. The road has been used since 1859, and he seems to have assumed that negotiations he had with Superintendents of the province, and with the Eoad Board, would prevent a dedication of the road being presumed. The Supreme Court has held he was in error in assuming this ; and that, having allowed the " user " of the road for such a length of time, and the expenditure of public money on the bridge and its approaches, to which the road leads, he cannot now be permitted to say the public have no right of " user " of this road. There is no doubt his want of knowledge of his rights has landed him in great expense, far more than the total area of his land is worth. It would only be fair that the local body should pay him the Value of the land to them, which arbitrators have fixed, and also the costs of the arbitration, and the costs in attempting to enforce the award. There seems to be no power to enforce the