[0. PAORA.

8

I.—3a.

15 The Court had no jurisdiction to hear it under the Equitable Owners Act?—That must be so, seeing the Court dismissed the case. I have an extract amongst my papers with reference to the matter. ..... „ t, tt [Extract from Auckland Minute-book 4, page 66.—" Application from Renata Poata Uruamo under the Native Equitable Owners Act, 1886 : Application read. Chief Judge :' I see an order for certificate was issued on I.oth February, 1869, to Natives, so that the case clearly does not come under the Act of 1886. Upon the certificate a Crown grant was issued to Apihai te Kawau, on trust for several other Natives, dated the Bth July, 1873 : this also shows that the case does not come under the Native Equitable Owners Act, 1886.'—Application dismissed."] 16. How did Poata Uruamo claim—on his own behalf, or on behalf of the other members ot the tribe? —For the family of Uruamo. _ 17 Was it just confined to that?—l could not say for certain, because I was quite a child then. 18 Did he claim that the owners under the original award were trustees for the people, or that the Court had committed an error in omitting the name of Uruamo ?—Well, I was too young at the time to know. I. cannot say what grounds he desired to place before the Court. All I know is that I have read the minute, and know the Court dismissed the application, ihe Court held it had no power to deal with that application under that Act. So lam unable to say what claim he intended to put forward, because his evidence was not contained in the minutes. 19. I suppose you would not have been born at the time? —Oh, yes. 20. Pehaps you were too young at that time to know what arrangements had been come to?—I was then "old enough to be away working in the bush. I am speaking of 1886. I was born in 1870. . . 21. And you would not be in a position to know, in the arranging of the list ot names under the original partition to be submitted to the Court, as the owners of the Orakei Block, what transpired between members of the hapus or the tribes before the Judge?—No, I can only speak of that by hearsay. ~• ~ 22 What did you hear with regard to the arrangement which was made J—l say that they were left out when the names were submitted for inclusion in the title. There are two common practices among Maori people—one is jealousy. Secondly, I say that this Court of Orakei was the first Court held in New Zealand as the outcome of the treaty which was framed at Kohimaramara. I admit that these people did not have the same knowledge of affairs as those who had previous intercourse with Europeans. Paora tu Haere was Government Commissioner at the time, and was selling land for the most trifling absurd sums. The Chairman: I would remind Otene Paora that he must confine himself to the answering of questions m ,_ v , _.. . 23. Hon. Sir J. Carroll.] The land was awarded to the Te Taou and Ngaoho Tribes, and to the members of those two tribes ?—Three tribes—Te Taou, Ngaoho, and Te Uringutu. 24. The Court undoubtedly directed these people to arrange amongst themselves the list of owners they were to put in ? —Yes. 25. All the prominent old men of the tribe were alive then and present?—Uruamo was dead then. . . „. .... ~ 26. In 1869? —Yes, before then; before the sitting of the Court. His children were alive, Aperahama and Tahana, and others. 27 Would it have been possible at that time that the list of names was arranged and agreed to voluntarily by all those concerned ?—Yes; but the arrangement arrived at was not a correct one, as they were not all provided with interests. Some were trying to obtain all for themselves and turn others out. ... . ~ 28. When that list of names was handed in to the Court as comprising the owners ot that land were there any objections made? —No. 29. Ihen your claim at the present before the Committee is this : that, considering that land was originally intended to be a permanent reserve for the tribes —that the fact of only thirteen owners being included suggests that that block was to be held in trust for the descendants of those tribes who may be in or outside the tribe?—Yes, that is my desire. 30. That is intended by the original rights of those who were not included in the ownership ?—Yes. 31. The land has been partitioned since? —Yes. 32. And several of the original owners have died? —Yes. 33. And successors have been appointed since? —Yes. . 34. There are several lessees of the various interests concerned? —Yes. 35. And I think you mentioned that certain interests have been sold? —Yes. 36. Well, now, what do you want Parliament to do in order to do justice to those on whose behalf you claim have not been included in the title : do you propose that the balance of the land should be reopened for investigation in order to reinclude them at the expense of those who have held the land ?—That is what I want. 37. Do you ask to have the land made hapu?—That would be the proper course, 38. Then, of course, there would be difficulties, as some of the land has gone?—But those moneys paid 'by those Europeans have been wrongly paid. It has been fraudulently stealing the land of the people. 39. Coming back to the case of Uruamo : he evidently was the leading man of the tribe? — Yes. 40. When this block was investigated by the Court he was dead at the time? —Yes. 41. Perhaps that accounted for the omission of any of his descendants —the head of the family was gone? —It looks like it.