I.—3a.

4

[0. PAORA.

Part V provides for the ascertainment of equitable owners. Now, what harm can possibly result to my friends on the other side —that is, to those opposing me? The only possible harm that can result to any one is to the Europeans who are leasing parts of the land. That is not what I am asking. lam not asking to be given the right to do injury to any one. All that I am asking is that we who have been left out should be included back in the laud as co-owners with those who at present are owners of that land. Now, I say that in the report of Messrs. Stout and Ngata —even though the position of the lessees of the Orakei Block is specially referred to —the deeds of lease of this Orakei Block have not been provided or drawn in accordance with the special Act of 1882, or the Native Reserves Act of 1882, which governs the Orakei Block. I say even though the report advised those Europeans as to that wrong which had been committed by them, they have now committed a still further w 7 rong : that is to say, that certain of my opponents have signed contracts to sell with those Europeans who desired to purchase this land which 1 say is not competent for them to purchase; and I maintain and point out to this Government that it would be a much more justifiable action to include in this land the proper owners than to give effect to any purchasers or speculators of any portion of this land at such ridiculously low prices as £90 to £100, and so on, per acre. The lowest value that could be placed upon that land is not less than £200 per acre. In the year 1908 a certain person named Hori Winiata died, and the Native Land Court sat to ascertain who were the proper persons to succeed that person Hori Winiata. Now, the interest of Hori Winiata was only a half-share, and had been 26 acres, and that was a further occasionally contested case, and the principal lawyers of Auckland were my opponents at that hearing. We disputed over this matter and contested this for three entire weeks, and the Court gave judgment in my favour as against the lawyers who were opposing me. The award made by the Court as a result of that hearing was that deceased Hori Winiata had no descendants of his own. The Court awarded the interests. The Court went back to the ancestor to trace the nearest of kin through him. Now, I say this is a matter which distinctly merits the consideration of this Committee. Is it correct that only those thirteen persons were entitled to succeed under that ancestor, or should the others that I have contended be so included? I say that this case is very similar to other eases in which it has been deemed necessary to constitute a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter, and subsequently pass legislation to deal with the matter. I will now read the report with regard to Hori Winiata (deceased) : " The deceased left no issue of his own, his parents are dead, and his brothers and sisters, if he ever had any, are also dead without leaving any issue. He came into the title as part successor to Warena Hengia, one of the grantees, who died without leaving any near relative. By mutual arrangement after the case had been heard, the deceased and Te Wira te Kawau were appointed the successors to Warena Henga (Ad. 14/25, 30). It is admitted by all parties before the present Court that the proper successors to Hori Winiata must be the next-of-kin of Warena Hengia in the line from which the latter derived his right to the land. That is undoubtedly the manner in which Maori custom has usually been interpreted by the Native Land Court in succession cases. There are a large number of claimants. It will be convenient first to deal with the case of Awatapu Paraone. He claims to be next-of-kin both of Hori Winiata and Warena Hengia, tracing himself from Ngautukerei, who he says was maternal uncle of Hori Winiata and half-brother of Warena Hengia by their father Hengia. The Court is of opinion it must reject this claim. The whakapapa is entirely uncorroborated. It conflicts in important particulars with Hori Winiata's evidence on the succession to Warena Hengia in 1883, and it seems clear from the records relating to the Orakei case that Warena Hengia's right came from his mother Hinerai o te Weta and not from Hengia. Watene Tautari, the surviving elder of the Orakei people, denies the whakapapa given by Awatapu, who admitted that he and his elders have belonged to Ngati-Paoa for at least three generations. A strong claim to Orakei was made by Ngati-Paoa when the title was first investigated, but the Court rejected it. This perhaps is an attempt to revive that claim. For the reasons given, the case of Awatapu Paraone is dismissed. The second claim is by Te Hira Pateoro, who relies on the evidence given in 1883. The Court is satisfied that evidence was incorrect as far as the descent of Warena Hengia was concerned. Wrrena's own evidence on the investigation of title to Orakei shows that he was a descendant of Hukatere through Tangihua, sister of Tuperiri, and that he w 7 as unaware of his connection with Waheakeake, who apparently had left no descendants. Te Hira Pateoro is, however, entitled to share in the succession as a descendant of Tuperiri. The Court cannot help him with regard to his exclusion from the succession to Te Hira Kawau. But he was undoubtedly wronged by the action of Paora Tuhaere and of his own sister Kirihipina Pateoro, who consented to the order. The Court thinks that Meri Tuhaere, the children of Kirihipina and the Rewetis, who benefited by that wrong, should now make some allowance to Te Hira on the present succession. It would be an act of justice. The third claim is that of Te Watene Tautari, all the other claimants except the two already referred to accepting his evidence and relying on it for their cases. Though there are one or two discrepancies between his whakapapa and that given at the investigation^yet they are not material, and the Court finds that the proper successors are the descendants of Tuperiri and his sister Tahatehi; latter is not shown in whakapapa given before the Court, but she appears in that recorded in the minutes of the investigation and in the printed table attached to the Orakei judgment. And Te Watene expressly admits the right of her descendant Hori Waiwhatu, now known as Hori te Paerimu. There appears to have been another child of Hukatere —namely, Waitaheke. Watene Tautari is descended from him as well as from Tuperiri. No claim, however, has been made in that line, and the Court has not found it referred to as having any right upon the investigation of title. Te Watene at first claimed that no one except the representatives of the original grantees should be admitted to the succession, but afterwards withdrew that. Mr. Earl, however, advanced the same contention, his point being that the persons who had right were settled on the investigation in