1.—4

14

Kua whakahaua ahau kia ki penei atu kite Whare:—Ko nga kupu i taea te whakapuaki kite aroaro o te Komiti c whakaatu ana kahore kau he kupu whakaae pera me tera i kiia ra, koia hoki i kore ai te Komiti c ki atu kia whiriwhiria paitia c te Whare te inoi a nga Kai-inoi. John Betce, Hepetema 12,1876. Tumuaki.

Report No. 2 on the Petition of Frederick Sutton. Petitioner prays that his petition, No. 29, already reported on to the House, should be reconsidered by the Native Affairs Committee. I am directed to report as follows: —That the Committee have already during the present session reported on the case of the petitioner, and they see no reason for again reporting on the subject. John Brtce, 13th September, 1876. Chairman. [Translation.] Ko te Kupu Nama 2 a te Komiti mo Runga i te Pukapuka-inoi a Pererika Tatana (Frederick Sutton.) E tono ana te kai-inoi kia whiriwhiria ano c te Komiti mo nga mea Maori tana pukapuka-inoi, Nama 29, kua oti ano te whai kupu c te Komiti. Kua whahahaua ahau kia ki penei atu kite Whare: —Kua whai kupu ano te Komiti i tenei nohoanga ano o te Runanga mo te tono a te kai-inoi a kahore c kitea c ratou he take i whai kupu ai ano ratou. John Brtce, Hepetema 13,1876. Tumuaki.

Report on the Petition of Hoani Turi te Whatahoro and Another. Petitioners state that land belonging to them was included in land sold by the Government to Robert Bidwill, of Pihautea, Wairarapa. They pray that the matter be investigated, with a view to the recovery of their land. I am directed to report as follows : —That it appears probable, from evidence taken by the Committee, that an error has been committed in surveying the boundary of the land referred to in the petition. The Committee recommend that an inquiry be made by the Government, without unnecessary delay, with a view to a remedy being provided, in case it should be proved that injury has been inflicted on the petitioners. John Brtce, 22nd September, 1876. Chairman. [Translation.] Ko te Kupu a te Komiti mo runga i te Pukapuka-inoi a Hoani Tuhi te Whatahoro me tetahi. E ki ana nga kai-inoi kua riro tetahi whenua o ratou ki roto ki tetahi whenua i hokona c te Kawanatanga ki a Robert Bidwill, o Pihautea, Wairarapa, c inoi ana ratou kia kimihia taua tikanga kia taea ai te whakahoki i ta ratou whenua ki a ratou. Kua whakahaua ahau kia ki penei atu ahau kite Whare: —E kitea ana i runga i nga kupu i whakina i te aroaro o te Komiti he he pea kei te ruritanga o te rohe o te whenua c whakahuatia ana i roto ite pukapuka-inoi. E mea ana te Komiti kia kimihia etc Kawanatanga te tikanga, a kia kaua c whakaroaina noatia, kia ahei te whakarite he whakaoranga mehemea ka kitea kua pa he mate ki nga kai-inoi. John Brtce, Hepetema 22, 1876. Tumuaki.

Report on the Petition of James Nelson Williams. TnE petitioner states that he is the agent of Frederick and William Nelson, who, in 1867, leased certain lands, situated in the Province of Hawke's Bay, from Natives to whom it had been Crown-granted in 1866. He also states that one of the grantees, Karama Pohatu, died before he could execute the lease, and that his successor, Peni te Ua, refuses to recognize the lease so far as his individual share is concerned, although the rent has been duly and regularly paid to him. The petitioner alleges that prior to the passing of "The Native Lands Act, 1869," the lease in question was perfectly good and valid, but that, owing to the retrospective effect of the 12th section of the said Act, the legal position of the lessees has been questioned, and that he has been informed that legal proceedings will be taken by Peni te Ua, the successor of Karama Pohatu, to eject the lessees from the original share of Karama Pohatu. The petitioner submits that, as the legal position of Frederick and William Nelson was perfectly good and valid prior to the passing of " The Native Lands Act, 1869," measures ought to be taken to set at rest any doubts which may have arisen as to the effect of the 12th section of the said Act, and prays accordingly. I am directed to report as follows : —That it does not appear that the time has arrived when the interference of the Legislature can be fairly demanded by the petitioner, inasmuch as it does not appear that the law as it stands does prejudicially affect the title set forth, and it is desirable that such matters should be left to be determined by the ordinary tribunals. John Brtce, 26th September, 1876. Chairman.