G.—7

28

87. The purchase of Nuhaka No. 1 Block by the Crown appears to have been conducted in the manner usual at the time. By Native custom the chiefs of the tribe selling were the responsible parties to carry out the negotiations for land-sale, execute documents, and receive the consideration payment. Such seemed to have been the procedure on this occasion. Matenga, the resident chief, at a meeting of his tribe, held apparently on the land, agreed to the sale. Ihaka Whaanga, the paramount chief at Wairoa, however, refused his sanction, and a second meeting was held. At both of these meetings Mr. McLean, on behalf of the Government, was present. At the second meeting the evidence, in the form of a newspaper repoi't, stated that " lhaka and his friends, who accompanied us from Te Wairoa, finding that Matenga and his people resident on the land were bent upon selling, gave in their consent." The proceedings seem to have been, carried out strictly according to Maori custom, and the sale of the land was before the residents of the block for at least two months. The chiefs, Ihaka Whaanga, Te Matenga, and Paora Te Apatu, all signed the deed of conveyance, and it was their duty, according to Maori custom, to partition the purchase-money out amongst the rightful owners and there is no reason to think at this late period that this was not done. We think, therefore, that the petitioners have not made out any case for relief. Petitions Nos. 16 and, 17. 88. These petitions refer to the same block of land as the two previous petitions —namely, Nuhaka No. 1 Block. In these petitions it is claimed that land known as the Mangaopuraka Block was included in the sale of Nuhaka No. 1 Block purchased by the Crown in March, 1865. This contention is based on. a statement alleged to have been made at the hearing of the Rangataua Reserve at Nuhaka, but the Wairoa Minute-book No. 31 referred to contains no such statement. In petition No. 1 7 the area claimed is 20,000 acres, which makes the Mangaopuraka Block more than half the area sold, and greater than Nuhaka No. 1 Block, under which name the" sale was effected. The inclusion of the Mangaopuraka Block in the sale under the name of Nuhaka No. 1 Block is stated in the petitions to have been a mistake —that is, by accident. We cannot think that such a mistake could have taken place, and, if it had, that it would not have been rectified soon after the transaction —sixty-three years ago. The petitioners have not made out any case for relief. Petition No. 18. 89. This petition sets out a claim for the return of a block of land, known as Mangatea, alleged to have been sold to the Crown, by Maoris who were not the owners of the block, and. wrongfully included in the sale of the Mahia Block on the 20th October, .1.864. This is the first petition to be presented in reference to this matter —sixty years after the deed of conveyance was executed and the Crown took possession of the block of land. The evidence in support was not convincing. If the Ngatihikairo hapu were the owners of the block containing 5,800 acres, and could substantiate their claim, it is improbable that no action, would be taken while the elders were alive. References were made in the petition, and in. the advocate's address, to the Native Land Court proceedings in regard to the Te Tawapata Block, and much importance was attached to statements of Wiremu te Ruamanga in claiming the north portion of that block. This land which the petitioners claimed, they asserted, was " Mangatea " ; whereas clearly it is "Te Tawapata North." We are of opinion that the petitioners have not made out any case for relief. Petition No. 19. 90. This petition deals with a purchase by the Crown from Maoris, seventysix years ago, of the Mohaka Block, containing 86,000 acres. The petitioners acknowledge the validity of the deed of conveyance, and claim, inadequacy of purchase-money. The purchase-money was £800, and the date of the sale the sth December, 1851. There is no trace of any other petition having been presented to Parliament, and it appears from the files that this is the first claim of its kind made regarding the Mohaka Block. It is not possible after such a long delay to