G.—l4e

2

in the Court of 1889 claimed they were trustees. The matter was not, however, completed, because the Court had been informed that there had been a sale which would possibly bar its jurisdiction, and on the 24th March, 1889, there is a note that the application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, part of the land having been sold. 7. For some reason the Chief Judge caused several applications to be renotified, and they were dismissed for non-appearance in January, 1893, the explanation being given that at that time the Natives were objecting to attend the Native Land Court. Some of the same applications were dealt with a third time in 1896, when they were dismissed on the ground that part of the land was sold. 8. It would appear from proceedings taken in the Supreme Court respecting the adjoining blocks that, as restrictions were not properly removed, there was no valid sale at the time the applications were first dismissed. Eventually these sales came before the Validation Court for validation, the result of those proceedings being that all the former partitions of the block were cancelled, and that Court divided the land into three parts —Nukutaurua No. 1, vested in Carroll and Wi Pere, and since sold to Ormond; Nukutaurua 6b, vested in a Native and since sold to Ormond; and Nikutaurua Nos. 2 and 3, vested by the Native Land Court in the Native grantees entitled, subsequently divided into five portions, one of which, Nukutaurua 2a and 3a, have been sold to Ormond. It is no doubt this latter sale that the petitioners refer to in their petition. The area left unsold of the block amounts to about 885J acres, distributed among four divisions with about thirteen owners. The Court has been unable to ascertain whether these owners have alienated or improved the portions so allotted to them. 9. There is a strong prima facie case in favour of the grantees being trustees for themselves and others, and the Court is satisfied that all the owners of the land were not included in the title. The Court is likewise satisfied that the Natives did what they could to get the matter reopened in the earlier days, and on its face the title is one that the Natives are entitled to have reopened. There were, however, several blocks put through at the same time and under similar circumstances, and the reopening of one is bound to lead to applications of a similar nature. The question of what should be done is therefore rather one of policy than otherwise, on which it would be better for the Court to express no opinion. For the Court. 25th November, 1911. R. N. Jones, Judge.

Approximate Cost o1 Paper.— Preparation, not given; printing, (1,400 copies), £1 10s.

Authority : John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9l2.

Price 3d.]