Gr. —6 A

It was admitted by counsel for petitioners that there was no question of fraud on the part of any one else apart from Mr. Nelson, and it was admitted that the deeds of sale were perfectly valid and were properly executed and witnessed, and that the purchase-money had actually been paid to the Natives shown in the title. In the petition itself (No. 63 of 1924) there is no mention made of any alleged reservation of the timber, nor of any act of fraud on the part of Mr. Nelson, nor of any claim that Mr. Nelson was the agent of the Crown. It was contended by counsel for the petitioners, however, that the petition itself had been " swallowed up " in the legislation of 1924 authorizing the present inquiry, and that it was open to the Court to inquire into the allegations of fraud and of a reservation of the timber, so as to do substantial justice in the case. Beyond calling very brief and insufficient evidence as to the quantity and value of the timber on the block at present, counsel for petitioners produced no evidence whatever in support of the claim in the petition that the price paid in 1875 was so inadequate as to give the Natives a right to compensation. Evidence was, however, brought in support of the claim that the Natives in 1873 agreed to sell the land only and not the timber to the Crown, but the witnesses admitted that in 1875 the Natives, when signing the deeds in the presence of the Native Land Court Judge, did not tell the Judge anything at all about this reservation of the timber, nor did they tell any Purchase Officer, or other senior Crown officer dealing with land, about this reservation. Evidence was also brought by counsel for petitioners to show that the Natives had from time to time exercised rights over the timber since 1875 by taking timber for the erection of two churches, some whares and fences, and for the building of canoes, and that the Natives had dug gum on this land. Evidence was also brought to show that the Natives presented a petition to Parliament about the year 1890, through their then member, Mr. Mutu Kapa, but it was admitted that nothing further was done until 1921, when the present petition was put under way. Only three witnesses were called in support of the claims of petitioners, and the evidence of two of them was of practically no value to the petitioners. The third witness was the Hon. Mr. Wiremu Rikihana, M.L.C., whose evidence will be referred to later. For the Crown it was contended — (1.) That Mr. Charles Nelson was not the agent of the Crown; that he was only the Interpreter attached to the Purchase Department; and that, in any case, no evidence whatever of fraud on his part had been given for petitioners in this case : (2.) That neither Mr. Nelson nor even any Purchase Officer could possibly have had authority from the Crown to negotiate a purchase of the land without the timber : (3.) That no mention of the alleged reservation of the timber was made by the Natives to the Native Land Court Judge who witnessed the signing of the deeds of sale, nor was any mention of such reservation ever made to any representative of the Crown from the year 1875 till the date of the present petition, and that the Natives themselves have never at any time gone upon the land in question and asserted any right to the timber : (4.) That this particular purchase was only one of a large number of purchases of timber areas in the same district, all effected about the same time, 1875 to 1877, and at about the same price, and that no allegations of fraud or reservation of timber had ever been made in respect of these other purchases. (5.) That the timber on Te Kauae-o-Ruru-Wahine at the time of the sale (1875) was of practically no milling-value on account of its inaccessibility, and that the royalty value of easily accessible kauri timber in 1875 was very low indeed—consequently, that the price paid in 1875 was an adequate one according to then known values. The Court, after hearing both sides and the addresses on behalf of the petitioners and the Crown, found it to be conclusively proved— (1.) That there was no evidence of fraud on the part of Mr. Charles Nelson in 1873 or 1875 in respect of this purchase : (2.) That Mr. Charles Nelson was not the authorized agent of the Crown to effect this purchase—the regular Purchase Officers being in the district at the time arranging the purchase of this block and of large areas in the same locality : (3.) That no officer of the Crown was authorized to buy the land only, apart from the timber : (4.) That both the timber and the land were bought by the Crown when it effected this purchase, and that there was no reservation of the timber from the sale by the Natives: (5.) That the price paid by the Crown in 1875, about Is. 3d. an acre, was only slightly lower than the average price (about Is. sd. per acre) paid by the Crown for areas in the same district, totalling about 140,000 acres, purchased during the years 1875 to 1877, many of which areas contained large forests of kauri and other timber : (6.) That the Kauae-o-Ruru-Wahine Block is a very inaccessible block, with the kauri timber distributed over a plateau about 1,200 ft. above sea-level, and that at the time of the purchase in 1875 the kauri timber had practically no milling-value on account of low prices and the probable cost of working this particular block : (7.) That the price for kauri timber easily workable was very low in 1875 in the Hokianga district —about 2d. to 4d. per 100 ft. (8.) That the Natives interested have no valid claim for compensation either in respect of any alleged fraud or in respect of any substantial inadequacy of the consideration paid by the Crown in 1875.

2