G.—9

16

name should be erased from that document, and placed in the document agreeing to the investigation of the title to the portion of that block called Owhaoko, in which I am interested. Therefore I say that I should be omitted from that document. There are two reasons for this : first, lest it should apply to all my interests ; and, secondly, my name having been appended to that document without my knowledge- I am of opinion that the Court should be reopened. I object to a statement reported to have been made by Hohepa Tamamutu, to the effect that he was justified in placing a person's name to that document without his knowledge, or secretly forwarding the claims of a person to certain lands. I say, No. Let him deal with his interests, and me with mine, which would only be acting according to law. Now, friend, if the Court is to be opened, inform me. Ended. From your friend, To the Hon. the Native Minister. Bawiri Kahia. It will be noticed he denies that he signed the withdrawal. I have already stated that the withdrawal had been signed only by Topia Turoa, Hohepa Tamamutu, and Te Eehu te Eeka. The other signatures had been annexed by Hohepa Tamamutu. On receipt of this letter, Mr. Gill wires to the Eegistrar of the Native Land Court at Auckland as follows : — Government Buildings, 15th January, 1881. Kindly wire me the position of the Owhaoko Block, 134,650 acres, heard at Porangahau in December, 1876, and ordered for rehearing in February, 1880. Has it been reheard ; and to whom awarded ? Where, in Gazette, can I find particulars ? B. J. Gill. The Eegistrar, Native Land Court, Auckland. And the reply from Mr. Dickey is as follows : — Be Owhaoko : a case is going to Supreme Court. Will not be decided before next session of Parliament most likely. A. J. Dickey, Eegistrar. B. J. Gill, Esq., Under-Secretary, Land Purchase Department, Wellington. Mr. Bryce wished to get at the facts of the case ; and his minute on the papers, dated the 13th January, 1881, was, — Mr. Gill or Mr. Booth may know something of this matter. It is likely enough that the writer's name has been forged to some document, as he alleges. Mr. Gill's memorandum is unique. It is as follows :— Under-Secretary, Native Department. This case is a very complicated one, and will probably only bo decided by the Supreme Court. I think a simple acknowledgment of Bawiri Kahia's letter is the proper course. The Government are not buying the land. Bichard J. Gill, 20/1/81. It is perfectly apparent that Mr. Gill knew nothing of what was being done, and that he had been bamboozled by Mr. Dickey's telegram. Kawiri Kahia's letter is acknowledged, and that is all the redress that he obtains. As had been stated by the Court on the 3rd November, The Chief Judge states a case for the Supreme Court, to ascertain if he could make an order; and this case was stated notwithstanding that the Natives had objected to the withdrawal of the rehearing, and without their being consulted regarding it. The case that was stated for the Supreme Court's decision was as follows :— On the 2nd December, 1876, an investigation was held at Porangahau into the Native title to a block of land called Owhaoko ; and on the 31st October following an order of Court was made in respect of the land, in the terms following:— "Native Land Acts, 1873, 1874. " District of Hawke's Bay.—Owhaoko Block.—At a sitting of the Native Land Court of New Zealand, held at Porangahau, in the said district, on the second December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, before J. Bogan, Esquire, Judge, and Hone Peeti, Assessor, it was ordered that a memorial of the ownership of Eenata Kawepo, Ihakara te Earo, Eetimana te Bango, Noa Huke, Hira te Oke, and Karaitiana to Eango, of a parcel of