G.-—6a,

4

(9) It is significant also that the report of the Stout-Ngata Commission mentions these reserves in its return showing Native lands and tenures as presented to both Houses of Parliament (parliamentary paper G.-Ig, 1908). It includes the following in its schedule of lands recommended to be reserved for Native occupation : — (a) Manuwhetai Native Reserve (area, 110 acres 3 roods). In the remarks column are the words " Reserved from sale to Crown as Wahitapu." (b) W hant/aiariki Native Reserve (area, 22 acres 1 rood 23 perches). There is no comment in the remarks column. Thus as late as 1908 these two areas were regarded as Native reserves. Mr. Meredith, for the Crown, expressed surprise that the Stout-Ngata Commission should have overlooked the lease to Downey. However, the Court points out again that Downey's lease affected an innocent looking piece of land described as Section 19, Block XII, Waipoua Survey District, and not as " Manuwhetai." (10) Mr. Darby under cross-examination said : "It was a frequent practice for reserves to be set aside out of big blocks. After the Crown acquired title it was fairly frequently the case that reserves were afterwards cut out. It was often the case that reserves were arranged for but not excluded from the deed, and later the reserves were Crown-granted back to the Natives. I don't think this happened in this particular case. If it did it would be merged in the big Waipoua Reserve." The Court agrees with Mr. Darby as to this well-known practice, but observes that the practice was not carried out in the case of the " Manuwhetai " and " Whangaiariki " Native Reserves. The reference by Mr. Darby to the Waipoua Reserve is beside the point, as this is a totally different reserve. The Judge taking this inquiry regrets to have to say that in his twenty-one years' experience on the Native Land Court Bench he has come across quite a number of cases where Native reserves originally arranged for have apparently without reason and without the knowledge or consent of the Natives been allowed to sink into oblivion. Only a petition can resurrect them. (11) The Court, from its wide knowledge of Maori life and customs, says it is preposterous to think that so long a stretch of coast-line, lying close to the big inland Maori settlement at Kaihu, would have been without areas in regular occupation by Natives for fishing, cultivation, kainga, and burial purposes. The evidence given in Court by Paiwiko Anania, an intelligent Maori of rank and one whose evidence the Court has always found to be reliable, was not seriously challenged by counsel for the Crown. Paiwiko said that the Natives lived on the Manuwhetai Reserve (110 acres), but used it mostly for cultivation and burial purposes. Paiwiko personally knew of two burial-grounds on " Manuwhetai," with many old graves in each. He traced back nine generations, and gave detailed evidence about a tohunga named Pinea who lived there, died there, and was buried there. He mentioned other burials also, including one Miriama, and some children of Parore te Awha (one of the vendors of Maunganui Block) by his first wife. Paiwiko said he himself had seen numerous skeletons on " Manuwhetai." The famous Chief Taoho died on " Manuwhetai," but was buried at Waipoua. Paiwiko said also that the Maoris had homes on " Whangaiariki " and cultivated there, but did not use it as a burial-ground. Many Natives lived there, including his own parents. He mentioned other elders who had lived and cultivated there. He said also that the Natives of the Kaihu district regularly used both reserves as bases for the collection of shell-fish and other sea-foods, a practice as old as the Maori race itself. Even to this day the Maoris go to " Manuwhetai " almost every week and sometimes stay there for two to three months. They have houses there which they occupy. (12) The Court is quite satisfied from the evidence that the Kaihu Natives must have been in regular occupation of these two reserves at the time of the sale to the Crown in 1876. That would be the ordinary and natural reason for the two areas being surveyed off as reserves. How could a private surveyor or even a Government surveyor have laid off those well-defined boundaries (not mere squares or rectangles) unless shown the boundaries by Natives in actual occupation of the reserves ? The surveyor could not think out the boundaries. He would have to be shown them. Indeed, in those days (1875) he would not have been allowed to survey reserves at all except with the knowledge and approval of the leading Maori chiefs of the district. It cannot be supposed that two high chiefs like Parore te Awha and Tiopira Kinaki would deliberately sell to the Crown two reserves, both occupied and in regular use for important food and residential needs, and one of them containing big and tapu burial-grounds. The clear presumption is that they carried out their chieftain duties and protected the occupation rights of their tribesmen within the area to be sold (1876) by first arranging (in 1875) for the two areas to be surveyed off and marked on the plan as reserves. It would hardly dawn on them that a sale deed signed so soon afterwards would include in the sale the two reserves so recently surveyed out. They were not living in modern days —days when keen scrutiny might be expected of a seller. They were two high chiefs who would probably have scorned to show distrust of the Crown's officers by a close examination of the deed submitted to them for signature. The Court considers it highly probable that Plan 3297-3298 showing the two reserves was before their eyes as they signed the deed of sale. They would not suspect that, by an oversight on the part of the official who drew up the deed, the two reserves were not protected by the deed. (13) As against all the above points of support for the claims of the Natives, the Crown representatives could offer only the following ■ (a) The evidence on investigation of title in 1876 made no reference to these reserves. The Court's comment on this is that the principal parties to the investigation were too intent on their own bitter contest to think it necessary to bother about two reserves already surveyed off' for exclusion from the sale to the Crown. (b) The deed of sale and the sketch on the deed did not show the two reserves as excluded. The Court's report shows how this happened.