April 5.] THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE. 527

And

The New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company
(Limited), John Blair Whyte and George Schultz
Kissling, both of Auckland, gentlemen, liquidators of
the said Company,

The Bank of New Zealand Estates Company (Limited),
and

Hugh Garden Seth-Smith, of Wellington, the Chief
Judge of the Native Land Court of New Zealand,

Defendants.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM.

The plaintiffs say,—

1. The New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company is
   a company duly incorporated under “The Companies Act,
   1882,” and is now in course of liquidation.

2. The defendants John Blair Whyte and George Schultz
   Kissling are the duly-appointed liquidators thereof.

3. The defendants the Bank of New Zealand Estates
   Company (Limited) are a company carrying on business in
   New Zealand and having their principal office in the Colony
   of New Zealand at the City of Auckland. They claim to be
   mortgagees or otherwise interested in the Paremata Block
   hereinafter mentioned.

4. That the Native Land Court of New Zealand, at a Court
   holden at Turanganui, in the District of Poverty Bay, on the
   2nd day of December, 1870, ascertained who were the persons
   entitled, according to Maori custom, to be owners of that
   piece of land or tract of country situate in the District of
   Poverty Bay, containing 9,426 acres or thereabouts (known
   as the Paremata Block), and, in pursuance of the 17th sec-
   tion of “The Native Land Act, 1867,” ordered a certificate
   of title to be issued, in accordance with the provisions of the
   said Act, in favour of Hepeta Maitai, Hera Rangiuiua, Taora
   Hura, Paki te Amaru, Torotia Kanapu, Mangai, Aperania
   Parekata, Wiremu Kingi, Hou, and Wikiriwhi Koura, being
   ten of the persons entitled to the said block of land, and
   caused to be registered in the same Court the names of 106
   Natives interested in such land, including the said ten per-
   sons named in the said certificate.

5. On or about the 17th day of March, 1871, the said
   certificate was given under the hand of the then Chief Judge
   of the Native Land Court, and issued under the seal of the
   said Court.

6. The plaintiffs are two of the persons registered in ac-
   cordance with the provisions of the said Act as owners of the
   said block of land.

7. The plaintiffs are, with the other Native owners, in pos-
   session of the said block.

8. On or about the 15th day of March, 1882, when the title
   to the said block was still under the said 17th section, the
   plaintiffs and about eighty other owners, but not all the
   owners of the said block, on the representations of William
   Lee Rees, of Gisborne, as solicitor and agent for the de-
   fendant company, and one Wiremu Pere, of Gisborne, a
   Native chief, also acting as agent for the said company,
   signed a document purporting to be a conveyance of their
   undivided shares and interests in the said block to the de-
   fendant company.

9. The consideration-money mentioned in the alleged deed
   of conveyance was £9,000; but no part thereof was ever paid
   to the plaintiffs nor to any of the other Natives who signed
   the said deed for the interests purporting to have been con-
   veyed by the said deed.

10. The said deed of conveyance was and is absolutely void
    and of no effect whatsoever, and the alienation purporting
    to be thereby made was then, and still is, prohibited by law,
    and no estate whatsoever passed to the said company there-
    under.

11. The defendant company had full notice that the said
    block of land was inalienable.

12. On or about the 5th day of April, 1882, the said Native
    Land Court, without giving any notice to the plaintiffs nor
    to others of the Native owners, and without their knowledge
    or consent, and contrary to law, proceeded, on the application
    of the defendant company, to subdivide the said block, and
    on the application of the said William Lee Rees, the solicitor
    and agent of the said company, and without any legal in-
    quiry, awarded on the same day the undivided interests of
    the plaintiffs and of the other eighty Native owners who had
    signed the said deed, amounting to 7,974 acres of the said
    block, to eighteen Natives, some of the owners of the said
    block, and ordered a certificate of title to issue to them
    therefor.

13. That the Native Land Court had no jurisdiction to
    make the said order, or any order whatsoever, on the ap-
    plication of the said company, the said company not then
    having any interest in the said land.

14. That the Native Land Court had no jurisdiction to
    award the interests of the plaintiffs, and of the other eighty
    Natives signing the said deed, to the eighteen Natives men-
    tioned in the said order, nor to order a certificate of title for
    the said area to issue to them therefor, such award and
    order respectively being contrary to law, and the plaintiffs
    never consented or agreed to such order.

15. That the said Court at the time of making the said
    award and order respectively had full knowledge that the
    said block of land was, at the time of the signing of the said
    deed of the 15th day of March, 1882, by the plaintiff, under
    the 17th section of the said Act, and that the provisions of
    the Native-land laws then in force were not complied with
    as to the alleged alienation to the said company.

16. The said Court did not issue the said certificate in
    manner provided by section 33 of “The Native Land Court
    Act, 1880,” and the said order lapsed.

17. Immediately after the said block was subdivided by
    the Court, to wit, on the 5th day of April, 1882, the said
    eighteen Natives, unknown to the said other owners, executed
    a document purporting to be a conveyance of their respective
    interests in the said 7,974 acres to the defendant company,
    in consideration of the sum of £9,000; but such considera-
    tion-money has not been paid to the plaintiffs or to the other
    owners.

18. The defendant company thereupon, without notice to
    the plaintiffs or to the other owners, and unknown to them,
    applied to the said Court to complete their title to the said
    7,974 acres, and the said Court, without making the inquiries
    and performing the duties imposed on the said Court by
    sections 59, 60, and 61 of “The Native Land Act, 1873,”
    made order that all the requirements of the said sections
    respectively were complied with.

19. The said eighteen owners in whose favour the said
    order was ordered to issue were not present at the said in-
    quiry, and they did not assent to the said sale.

20. On the 17th day of April, 1883, the then Chief Judge
    directed the Native Land Court not to make or sign the
    order of freehold tenure to the defendant company, and sub-
    sequently drew the attention of the Court to the restriction
    recommended in the original certificate issued under the
    17th section of the Act of 1867, referring, no doubt, to the
    conveyance by the plaintiffs and the other eighty owners to
    the company, dated the 15th day of March, 1882, and upon
    which conveyance the Court, on the 5th day of April, 1882,
    without any inquiry whatsoever, awarded the lands of the
    alleged vendors therein named to the eighteen Natives; but
    the present Chief Judge, the defendant, has ignored such
    instructions and directions.

21. On the 24th day of February, 1890, the defendant Chief
    Judge wrote in reply to a letter addressed to him on behalf
    of the plaintiffs and other owners not to issue a certificate of
    title to the said eighteen Natives for the 7,974 acres, stating
    that it was intended to make further inquiry into the
    matter; but he “was then unable to make any definite
    arrangements.”

22. On the 26th day of March last past the said Chief
    Judge directed the Native Land Court at Gisborne to make
    inquiry, under sections 59 and 60 of “The Native Land Act,
    1873,” into the particulars of a proposed sale of the said
    Paremata Block to the defendant company; but the Court,
    consisting of Judges Barton and Von Stürmer, having re-
    fused to inquire into the circumstances attending the man-
    er in which the order for freehold tenure was obtained in
    1882, and holding that they were bound and could not go
    behind such order, reported to the defendant Chief Judge,
    not on the proposed sale, but on an application of one of the
    Native owners, namely, Honi Patene Taki, under section
    13 of “The Native Land Court Act, 1889,” that such appli-
    cation be dismissed, and the said Judges added as a post-
    script to such report as follows:—“Paremata: The applica-
    tion under sections 59 and 60 of ‘The Native Land Court
    Act, 1873,’ was disposed of at the same time, there being
    no evidence of any kind offered. On each occasion that the
    application under section 13 of ‘The Native Land Act, 1889,’
    was called on, this application was also under consideration.
    —G.E.B., S.V.S.”

23. On the 9th day of June last the said Chief Judge dis-
    missed Honi Patene Taki's application, but neither the
    defendant Chief Judge nor the Court made any further
    inquiry into the particulars of the alleged sale to the
    defendant company.

24. On or about the 25th day of June, 1890, the defendant
    Chief Judge signed a certificate of title certifying that the
    said eighteen owners were entitled to 8,475 acres of the said
    block, although the original order made in 1882 was that
    the said eighteen Natives were entitled to 7,974 acres
    only.

25. The said Chief Judge had no jurisdiction to sign the
    said certificate of title to the said eighteen Natives, as such
    certificate of title should have been issued by the Court
    in 1882, in the manner provided by section 33 of “The
    Native Land Court Act, 1880,” and in the names of the
    plaintiffs and the other alleged vendors.

26. The said Chief Judge has antedated the said certificate
    to the 5th day of April, 1882, which is contrary to law, and
    beyond his jurisdiction.

27. That the restrictions recommended and imposed by
    the Act of 1867 attach to the certificate of title issued to the