Gr.—6 A

1945 NEW ZEALAND

THE NATIVE PURPOSES ACT, 1943 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION No. 308 OP 1936, OF MUTU KARAITIANA, CONCERNING THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE POUPOUTAHI AND MATATUOWHIRO BLOCKS AND THE TE AUTE COLLEGE ENDOWMENT RESERVE

Presented to Parliament in pursuance of the Provisions of Section 19 of the Native Purposes Act, 1943

Native Land Court (Chief Judge's Office), "Wellington C. 1, 30th October, 1945. Memorandum for the Hon. the Native Minister, Wellington. POUPOUTAHI AND MATATUOWHIRO BLOCKS AND TE AUTE COLLEGE ENDOWMENT RESERVE Pursuant to section 19 of the Native Purposes Act, 1943, I transmit to you the report of the Court on the claims and allegations contained in Petition No. 308 of 1936, of Mutu Karaitiana, concerning the boundaries of these blocks. A copy of the plan from Exhibit " J " referred to in the report has been appended. I have considered the report of the Court, and recommend that no further action be taken on this petition. D. Cr. B. Morison, Chief Judge. Wellington, 28th June, 1945. Memorandum for His Honour, the Chief Judge, Native Department, Wellington. POUPOUTAHI, MATATUOWHIRO, AND TE AUTE COLLEGE ENDOWMENT RESERVE I have the honour to report as follows:— The subject-matter of this inquiry is set out in Petition 308/1936, of Mutu Karaitiana, and is concerned with the boundaries between the Poupoutahi and Matatuowhiro Blocks and the Te Aute College Endowment Reserve. Paragraph 3 of the petition alleges that the boundary between the college reserve and the Poupoutahi and Matatuowhiro Blocks was wrongly fixed, and that thereby an area of 8 acres 1 rood 20 perches belonging to the Poupoutahi Block and an area of 31 acres 2 roods 10 perches belonging to the Matatuowhiro Block were wrongly included in the college reserve. In evidence the petitioner claimed the area of 8 acres 1 rood 20 perches mentioned above and also an area of 24 acres 0 roods 10 -'perches being a portion of the area 31 acres 2 roods 10 perches mentioned above. The balance of 7 acres 2 roods he makes no claim to, on the grounds that it was sold by the Native owners to Mr. Priest and is now included in his title. Mr. Pere, who appeared for the petitioner, described the areas of 8 acres 1 rood 20 perches and 31 acres 2 roods 10 perches as the Poupoutahi overlap and Matatuowhiro overlap respectively. The only witness called by Mr. Pere was the petitioner himself, but he supported this evidence with a wealth of documentary extracts. Mr. Prentice, who appeared for the To Aute trustees, also contented himself with one witness—namely, Mr. Rochfort— who made some of the original .surveys. This evidence he supported by plans, a Land Transfer title, and various copy Native Land Court searches. The investigation of this matter takes us back to 1857 when, following a gift by Natives, the land was vested in the Bishop of New Zealand by Crown grant. The Court was informed that since that time the land has been occupied by the trustees of the Te Aute Trust Board continuously and without interruption. It' is clear that when it is sought to disturb a position under these circumstances the evidence in support must be full, clear, accurate, and convincing. The case which was presented to the Court attempted to substantiate the allegation that the land which was gifted by the Natives is not properly described in the certificates of title which were subsequently issued to the Trust Board.