G.—6 a

1926. NEW ZEALAND

NATIVE LAND AMENDMENT AND NATIVE LAND CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1924. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION No. 63 OF 1924, OF TAMAHO MAIKA AND OTHERS, RELATIVE TO THE PRICE PAID BY THE CROWN IN 1875 FOR TE KAUAE-O-RURU-WAHINE BLOCK.

Presented to Parliament in pursuance of the provisions of Section 45 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1924.

Petition No. 63 of 1924.—Kauae-o-Ruru-Wahine 1, 2, 3. Native Department, Wellington, 28th May, 1925. Pursuant to section 45 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1924, I enclose the report of the Native Land Court herein. In view of that report I recommend that no further action be taken with regard to the matter complained of by the petitioners. The Hon. the Native Minister. R. N. Jones, Chief Judge.

Opononi, Ist May, 1925. Decision of Court: Te Kauae-o-Ruru-Wcihine Block. Application 79.—Application by the Chief Judge under section 45 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1924, for inquiry and report upon the claims in Petition No. 63 of 1924, of Tamaho Maika and others, as to the price paid by the Crown in 1875 for Te Kauae-o-Ruru-Wahine Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and as to compensation. Mr. J. J. Sullivan, solicitor, Auckland, for the petitioners ; Mr. 11. J. Knight, Lands Office, Auckland, for the Crown. The inquiry opened at Opononi on Thursday, 30th April, 1925, before a particularly large and representative gathering of Natives interested. The hearing was concluded on Friday, Ist May, 1925, and the Court decided that it was quite impossible to report favourably upon the claims of the Natives in this case. Counsel for petitioners claimed — (1.) That the sale to the Crown was negotiated between the Natives and a Mr. Charles Nelson at a meeting in 1873, as a result of which the title was investigated, partition orders made, and deeds of sale to the Crown signed in 1875 : (2.) That at such meeting in 1873 Mr. Charles Nelson acted as the agent of the Crown and was understood by the Natives to be acting as agent for the Crown, and that he agreed with the Natives that the land only should be sold to the Crown, and that the timber on the land should be reserved from the sale and remain vested in the Natives: (3.) That the Natives, when signing the deeds of sale on the 12th June, 1875, still understood that the land only was being sold, and not the timber, and that they relied on the 1873 agreement with Mr. Nelson for the reservation of the timber: (4.) That such reservation of the timber, though not expressed in writing as required by the Statute of Frauds, was a collateral agreement capable of adding to the effect of the deeds of sale though not of varying the terms of the deeds of sale : (5.) That the omission of Mr. Nelson to notify the Crown or his superior officers in 1875 of the 1873 agreement to exclude the timber from the sale constituted an act of fraud on the part of Mr. Nelson, and that it would be contrary to equity and good conscience for the Crown to take advantage of this act of fraud of its agent: (6.) That the Natives had sufficient cause for regarding Mr. Nelson as the agent of the Crown authorized to agree to the reservation of the timber from the sale, because he negotiated the purchase for the Crown and also paid over some deposits to the Natives.