G.-5

40

The widow died February, 1911, leaving a will. She had received the rents previous to her death. Mr. Rishop argued that this was not a case where the will should be validated, as question of restrictions preventing disposition by will had been raised when probate was granted. He maintained that Court never intended this section should be affected by the grant of probate, but merely made the grani for such property as would legally pass under the will. Mr. Wright stated thai in 1910 a Bill was circulated dealing with these matters, which Judge was presumed to have known of : that successors had never been in possession. I think will should not be validated, and that succession order should stand. Section 63. Grant under the Crown Grants Act, 1862 (No. 2). Area : 14 acres and 16 perches. Restrictions prevent disposition by will. Grantee : Hori te Maiwhaknrea. Succession order, dated 14th October. 1885. is in favour of Irihapeti te Rato. and was made in terms of will of grantee. Irihapeti left a will also, but on 30th October, 1886, succession was ordered in favour not only of devisee (the husband), but including with him the sister and nephews of deceased. On death of the husband (Te Kooti te Rato) a succession order was made (16th September, 1897) in terms of his will. There has been no appeal from this order, and the persons taking seem to have been the next (or very near) of kin of Frihapeti te Rato, deceased. As no objections have been raised, and orders have stood so long, and persons claiming have been in possession right down to the present, I do not think these orders should bo interfered with. Section 64. Grant under the Crown Grants Act, 1862 (No. 2). Area : 14 acres and 6 perches. Restrictions prevent disposition by will. Grantee : Paora Taki. Paora Taki died on the 7th December, L 897, leaving a will dated 26th July, 1889, devising this section to Wikitoria Tane, or Denny, and her son Teone te Rangi te Pikitia Denny for ever. Letters of administration, with will annexed, were granted by the Native Land Court on the 9th June. 1899. to John Denny, the husband of Wikitoria called in will " niece of testator." On 12th September, L 902, Henare Whakatau Uru. as agent, applied for succession to Paora Taki. He informed Court that will left by deceased did not operate over this land, and that deceased's daughter. Wikitoria Ngaroimata Nohomutu, was alone entitled to succeed. No objectors appeared, and Court made an order as asked. Three days later it appears as if the Court had agreed to hold order over, on request of Mr. Stringer, till question of restrictions definitely settled. Wikitoria Ngaroimata Nolioinutu died on the 2nd January, 1904. Left a will, dated 12th September, 1902, in favour of Rahera Muriwai Uru for all her real and personal estate. This Rahera Muriwai Uru is wife of the H. W. Uru who is mentioned above as informing Court that restrictions prevented disposition by will. It is not. therefore, likely that Rahera thought the will in her favour passed this land. For Mrs. Uru to have a title to this land one will (Paora Taki's) would have to be set aside, and one (Wikitoria's) validated. Probate was granted of this latter will on 25th April, 1904. after question of power to dispose of these lands by will had been raised. On 13th September, 1905, the Native Land Court made an order appointing successors to Wikitoria Ngaroimata Nohomutu for this section. Order was subsequently varied to some extent by the Appellate Court, bul only as to persons entitled as next of-kin —some sixty-two successors in all. If either will ought to be validated, it would, in my opinion, be the earlier one, but I do not thinkeither should be. There is considerable difficulty as to the lessee's position. The lessee paid rent to the administrator under Paora Taki's will, and was sued in the Magistrate's Court by one of the successors when they entered into possession. Judgment obtained against him at Rangiora for £34 7s. 6d. and costs on the 23rd September, 1910. by an owner of thirteen-forty-eighths of the section. Apparently other successors would also be able to obtain judgments for rent against him. He has already paid once, and his only protection is the claim he would have »n a guarantee given by Mrs. Uru to indemnify him. This would not be worth much, as her only income is rent and profits of land. He was forced to pay Mrs. Uru. or Uru would have entered on land. Rents, &c, protected by section 423 of Act of 1909. He has since obtained a lease from the successor. I understand. I recommend that some relief be granted the lessee. Section 68. Grant under the Crown Grants Act, 1862 (No. 2). Area : 15 acres 2 roods 36 perches. Restrictions prevent disposition by way of sale, mortgage, lease, or otherwise without consent of Governor. Grantee : Arapata Ivoti. Deed of settlement (with consent of Governor) dated 25th November, 1880, appointing Matana Piki and another trustees fur Arapata Koti (owner) during his lifetime, and afterwards for Tini Taiaroa and her children. If Tini Taiaroa should have J!o issue. Matana Piki and another are trustees for descendants of Arapata Koti. Consideration. 10s., paid by trustees to owner. Deed is registered. No objections raised before Commission.