G.—s

16

probate, and made succession order. Probate granted and succession orders on same day. No probates granted specially, excepting these lands. My friend says wishes of testator should be carried out. Which have, greatest claims —his next-of-lcin or others ? Even if testator thought he could will land, no equity to devisees for restrictions placed there for a definite purpose. No hardship to devisees if wills upset. They knew they had no right to take—no equity to weigh with legal claims of next-of-kin and their equity. As to din wing of wills, no evidence produced as to what circumstances wills drawn under. Testators may have been advised lands did not pass, 01 that Governor's consent was necessary first. No will drawn up by a lawyer in actual practice. (Questioned by Mr. Wright.) In nearly every case where probate of will granted since 1892 successors are now in possession under a legal title. Fought for since 1899. .Most unjust to deprive them now. As to compensation, if successors are deprived they must be compensated. Only question, who is to pay ? If devisees are deprived, no question of compensation. They have enjoyed fruits of ownership they wei t\ entitled to. Done well already. Government should compensate successors if deprived. Government servants granted the probates. All cases where probates granted since 1892 successors be allowed to retain lawful title. and that in any case where will validated successor be compensated. Mr. Wright: (1.) Legal claim of persons under wills; (2) moral claim of persons under wills. Doubt if Court of Appeal not proceeded upon a wrong assumption of the law. Land Titles Act, 1908, validates wills in some cases. Commission not to invalidate valid wills, only to validate invalid wills. Long possession under wills in favour of my clients, not against them, all grantees dying previous to operation of Native Succession Act, 1881. The restrictions are gone, and that there is no legal objection to will of any person taking by succession onler to person dying before 1882. King v. Price : Restrictions go if will operates. By Intestate Native Succession Act, 1861, section 7, provision for recall of Crown grant on death of grantee, and provision for reissue. In Native Land Act. 1865, section 34, succession order to have same effect as will. Native Land Act, 1873. section 57 : Every such order shall have same effect as a will. In 1876, section 3, as if absolute devisees, Native Land Act, 1881, makes a difference; gives him some estate. Proposition: Every will of which probate granted passes these restricted lands unless probate specially excepts them ; fullest power to will, but had to get consent of Governor. They were unaware of this, but there is sufficient law in their favour to save them. Crown grant says dispositions must be consented to by Governor, or some person authorized by him. At a very early date this power delegated to Commissioners and to Native Land Court. Wills could be consented to after death of testator, or before it. I'm v. Te Rangi, 24 N.Z. L.R., dictum Stout, J., 6398 : Granting of probate by this Court is a consent to the will. Probates have in some cases excepted these lands. Section 46/94 devise sufficient to vest [and without succession order. Now, as to moral claim : Diverse restrictions on South Island Natives ; small quantity of land owned by South Island Natives ; works hardships. Kaiapoi Reserves : Four kinds of restrictions. Natives until a few years ago never thought they could not will. Number of wills deal with other reserves than this ; differing restrictions work inequality. Mere Maaka's case : Successors placed in unrestricted lands, and yet come in and claim devisees' gift of the restricted portions. Sections from Ito 122 do not pass by will, but Section 83 does pass. Section 94 cannot pass. Section 95 can pass by will. The. confusion that has arisen has not only been action of Government officials, but practice of this Court. Right to will matter of special agreement between Buller and women of tribe. These lands always could be willed if certain formalities observed. Those formalities were not observed by the Court —by Canon Stack, by Judge Mackay, by Judge Gresson, and others (that is. if Commissioner rules against my legal argument). Judges ask in every case, " Has will been left by deceased ? " Devisees punished because they could not construe "or otherwise." Sir R. Stout, C.J., holds "or otherwise " does not cover a will, and four other Judges say it does. The Maoris, of course, considered they were safe in willing by action of Government servants. Government must compensate. Maoris make compact with Buller, and acted up to it, for Natives did not leave lands to Europeans, but to other Natives ; they have kept this land for themselves. In no instance have they left land to a pakeha. As soon as ever a doubt about leases Maori Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act, 1904, protects lessees ; yet the Government does not protect the Maoris. Delay in bringing in remedial legislation. Remedial legislation promised— not necessary to validate succession the Act is for purpose of validating wills—that is, those wills which ought to be validated. 1 submit validation of these wills will make for benefit of Maoris of South Island. Succession orders would cm up sections too small. Sixty-four owners in one section. Natives, instead of being interested in a dozen blocks, would have their rights lumped into one. Compensation should be granted to those who have suffered. This my friend says applies to successors. I agree, but applies more forcibly to devisees if dispossessed. Policy referred to by ray friend has been weakened. Kaiapoi Natives have carried out what is the present policy of Native Land Act, 1909 —willed, but not to Europeans. South Island Natives always been accustomed to dealing more with Europeans. Under Act of 1909, if Maori has not provided for his widow or children in will, then Court can modify will. Mas had right since 1894. One solution : Will be validated, and leave it to successors to bring any hardship before Native Land Court, notwithstanding lapse of time. Statement of Hone Tare Tikao in reference to the Inquiry with regard to the Legality of Wills relating to Restricted Lands. In the year 1861 the Native reserve at Kaiapoi was divided by Sir Walter Buller. It was arranged between him and the interested Natives that each married man was to receive not less than 10 acres and not. more than "_'(> acres. Sii Walter Buller said that in this allotment the wife to share equally with her husband. Single women, were to get not less than '?> acres and not moie than 7 acres each. This partition gave an average of about 1-1 acres to each man. and "> acres to each single woman. 'This arrangement was approved of by all parties interested. Sir Walter stated thai the Crown grants would not be issued for two or three years, and also that he was directed by the Governor to say the grants