46

the Land Claims Ordinance, whereby certain portions or parcels of land in the said deeds of grant particularly described were conveyed to George Clarke the respondent hereto, his heirs and assigns, should not be declared void or annulled : the said writ of scire facias was sued out accordingly, bearing teste the thirteenth day of January, 1848, and directed to the Sheriff of the Northern Division of the said Colony of New Zealand, whereby, after reciting that by certain deeds of grant, bearing date the eighteenth* day of May, 1844, and signed by Robert Fitz Roy, Esquire, then Governor of the said Colony of New Zealand, and sealed with the Public Seal of the said Colony, were granted certain portions or parcels of land in the said deeds more particularly described, amounting in the whole to five thousand five hundred acres, unto the said George Clarke (therein described as George Clarke of Waimate), his heirs and assigns; and also reciting that Her Majesty had been given to understand that the said grants so made to the said George Clarke were issued unlawfully and contrary to the provisions of a certain Ordinance, Session one, number two, and that the same ought to be declared void and annulled : the said Sheriff was by the said writ commanded that by good and lawful men of his bailiwick he should make known to the said George Clarke that he should be before the said Supreme Court, at the place and time therein mentioned, to show if he had or knew anything to say for himself why the said deeds of grant so made to him ought not to be declared void and be annulled, &c. On the twenty-first day of February, 1848, the Appellant declared in scire facias against the said George Clarke alleging that the said grant of the sixteenth of May, 1844, purported to convey to the said George Clarke, his heirs and assigns, all that allotment or parcel of land said to contain four thousand acres, more or less, situate between Waimate and Hokianga, and the boundaries whereof were more particularly set forth in the said grant : that the four thousand acres comprised in and purported to be granted by the said grant were claimed by the defendant the said George Clarke, as having been purchased by him from certain of the natives of that country before the proclamation of the Queen's sovereignty over the said islands: that the said claim of the defendant the said George Clarke was duly referred for investigation, pursuant to the provisions of the Land Claims Ordinance, Session one, number two, to two Commissioners, Edward Lee Godfrey, and Matthew Richmond, who duly heard and examined the same, and on the thirtieth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and forty-three, reported upon the same for the information and guidance of the Officer for the time being administering the Government of the Colony : that the said Commissioners were not authorized by the Governor in Council to recommend a grant of land to the said defendant exceeding two thousand five hundred and sixty acres : that the said Commissioners, by a Report dated 30th day of May, 1843, under their hands, recommended that a portion only of the land claimed, namely, two thousand five hundred and sixty acres, should be granted to the defendant : that the said Report was confirmed by the Officer administering the Government, for whose information and guidance the said Report was made, and that the confirmation of the said Report was published in the New Zealand Government Gazette of the 21st day of June, 1843 : that subsequently, namely, on the 16th day of May, 1844, the grant thereinbefore mentioned was made by Robert Fitz Roy, Esquire, the then Governor of the said Colony of New Zealand, to the defendant the said George Clarke: and the Appellant thereby further said that the said grant of the 16th day, 1844, ought to be declared void, annulled and set aside, for the reasons following (that is to say), First, because the said grant was made contrary to the said Commissioners' Report so made and confirmed as aforesaid; Secondly, because no greater quantity than two thousand five hundred and sixty acres of land could or can be granted to any claimant under the provisions of the said Land Claims Ordinance, except upon the recommendation of the Commissioners who heard and examined the claim in manner prescribed by the said Ordinance, being specially authorized thereto by the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council. On the 4th day of March, 1848, the said defendant George Clarke appeared to the said declaration, and pleaded thereto, That subsequently to the said reference to and report of the said Commissioners Edward Lee Godfrey and Matthew Richmond, and on or about the 1st day of May, 1844, the said Robert Fitz Roy, Esquire, the then Governor of New Zealand, referred the said claim of the said defendant to Robert Appleyard Fitzgerald, a Commissioner duly appointed under an Ordinance, Session three, number three, intituled Land Claims Amendment Ordinance, who, on or about the second day of the said month of May, sent in to the said Robert Fitz Roy, Esquire, a Report in writing, whereby the said Robert Appleyard Fitzgerald recommended that the said defendant should be allowed Crown Grants for five thousand five hundred acres, less exceptions. And the said defendant further said that the said four thousand acres comprised in the said deed of grant were part of the five thousand five hundred acres in the said Report mentioned, and that the said deed of grant was made and issued in pursuance of the said Report of the said last named Commissioner. The Appellant thereupon filed a demurrer to the said plea, and thereby said that the said plea was insufficient in law, for the reasons following (that is to say), First, that the said Commissioner Robert Appleyard Fitzgerald was not nor was any single Commissioner authorized by the provisions of the said Land Claims Amendment Ordinance, Session three, number three, to re-hear claims or to reverse Reports already duly heard, investigated, and reported upon by two Commissioners pursuant to the provisions of the Land Claims Ordinance, Session one, number two, which he had not heard and examined in manner prescribed by the said Ordinance; Secondly, that the single Commissioner Robert Appleyard Fitzgerald was not nor was any single Commissioner authorized to report upon claims to land under the said Land Claims Ordinance, Session one, number two, which he had not heard and examined in manner prescribed by the said Ordinance; Thirdly, that it was not alleged in the said plea that the said Commissioner Robert Appleyard Fitzgerald was specially authorized by the Governor in Council to recommend a greater quantity than two thousand five hundred and sixty acres of land to be granted to the said defendant. It was admitted between the parties in the said suit that the said Report and recommendation of the said Commissioner Robert Appleyard Fitzgerald were not preceded by or made in pursuance of any special authority given for that purpose by the Governor with the advice of the Executive Council, as required by the