I.^3a

32

that is as to the name Eaiha Tamaho. It would appear that in the year 1870 the Native Land Court made a succession-order declaring Hekierd the sole successor to his father. Bight years later, by some extraordinary blunder, the Court made a second succession-order declaring Hekiera and Eaiha to be co-successors to the same estate. Of course the first order was valid and the second invalid. The Court so held. In accordance with the information supplied by the Eegistrar to Mr. Millar, he dealt, in the first instance, with Hekiera, as the sole owner of the share ; after the payment had been made, the Minister received a letter signed by Peri te Huhu and Eaiha herself, in which they stated that she had been appointed successor to her father. Thereupon the following telegram was sent to the Native Lands Court : — "Eegistrar, Native Land Court, Auckland. " Kaitaia.—Eaiha Tamaho says that she was appointed as successor with Hekiera Tamaho at a Court held by Judge Munro at Mongonui, to share of Tamaho te Huhu. Will you please look up the minutes and see if her statement is correct. Information supplied by your office shows Hekiera Tamaho as sole successor. " Wellington, 11th February, 1892." " P. Sheeidan. To this the following was received in reply : — "P. Sheridan, Native Office, Wellington. " Kaitaia.—Eaiha Tamaho's statement is correct, but a succession-order had previously been made by Judge Maning in favour of Hekiera Tamaho alone ; the later order is therefore null and void. " Auckland, 12th February, 1892." " H. F. Edg-ab, Eegistrar, Auckland. On the face of this the Native Minister decided that there was nothing for it but to pay Eaiha Tamaho for a half-share. The Natives appear to have been considerably mixed as to her position in the matter. This explains it. 108. Hon. Mr. Mitchelson.] What was the total area of land purchased by Mr. Lundon ?—He only purchased two blocks—the Mangaruru and Kaitaia—6,s27 acres altogether. 109. What was the price paid per acre?— For Mangaruru ss. per acre, and for Kaitaia 7s. 6d. an acre. 110. Will you state the amount Mr. Lundon was to receive as commission upon the purchase of each of these blocks ?—The amount he was to receive, and did receive, was for Mangaruru £15, and for Kaitaia £50. 111. And did he receive these amounts? —He did; I paid him myself in Auckland. 112. That was his commission on the purchase of the blocks?— Yes; it was stated that it was to cover all the expenses. There was to be no other expense incidental to the purchase, as far as the Government was concerned. 113. Did the Government understand at that time that Lundon was offering the land at 3s. an acre more than the Natives were going to be paid for it? —Certainly not. 114. Then, when agreeing to purchase this land at 7s. 6d. an acre, you fully understood that the money was to be actually paid to the Natives? —Yes. 115. On the Bth October, when the arrangement was made, was it understood by the Government that Mr. Lundon had authority from the Natives to act as their agent ? —Yes ; at least, I understood so. 116. Mr. Kapa.] Who informed the Government that Mr. Lundon had been appointed as an agent for the Natives ?—Probably Mr. Lundon himself. 117. Hon. Mr. Mitchelson.'] I suppose there was no understanding that, in addition to the commission he was receiving from the Government, he was also to deduct commission from the Natives ? —I do not think so. 118. Mr. Lundon.} Had you and I any conversation about the purchase of the blocks?—l cannot recollect anything special. I may have remarked that, when the purchases were completed, the work appeared to have been done in a very satisfactory and business-like manner. The deeds and vouchers were properly attested. 119. Did I know you previous to the purchase at all ? —I do not think so; Ido not think we knew each other. We had never spoken before; I never spoke to you until I met you in Auckland after the purchase was completed. 120. Hon. Mr. Mitchelson.] I would like to follow that question up with another. You stated that you considered everthing was done in a satisfactory manner—that the deeds and everything were in proper order ? —Yes. 121. Well, would you have made that statement had you known that the Natives had only been paid 4s. 6d. an acre, while the Government paid 7s. 6d. ? —Certainly not. 122. Would you have considered that unsatisfactory?—l would have declined to authorise the vouchers. 123. Hon. Mr. Richardson.] Was the £50 paid to Mr. Lundon for the purchase of the Kaitaia Block about the usual amount of remuneration paid in similar cases ? —lt was rather less. I thought that Mr. Lundon was doing the work very cheaply, in the expectation of obtaining further employment. 124. What would have been about the ordinary rate of remuneration ?—Well, I do not know. Land-purchases are generally carried out by salaried officers. 125. Had the department no salaried officers who could have been used to make this purchase? —No. 126. Hon. Mr. Mitchelson.] I suppose you have a fair idea as to what the purchase would have cost had it been made by one of your own officers ?—lt would have cost at least as much as was charged by Mr. Lundon. 127. Would it have cost anymore? Would it have cost more than £100?— Probably from