568
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE.
[No. 28

Eru Pao—dead. Successors—Hone Niwa, of Whangara, vid Gisborne; Te Rua and Peihana, both of Gisborne; Maharata, of Whangara, vid Gisborne; Te Ruia, of Tologa Bay.

Paki te Amaru—dead. Successors—Karaitiana Amaru and Hera Rangiuria, the former of Tologa Bay, the latter dead.

3. Certified owners who are dead, but no successors appointed. The persons named as probable successors to be served.

Hepeta Maitai. Hapata Kuhukuhu, Timoti Maitai, and Hirini Maitai are his probable successors, all of Tologa Bay.

Ema Miromiro. Probable successors, the above three.

Hera Rangiuria. Probable successor, Karaitiana Amaru, of Tologa Bay.

Henare Ruru. Probable successors—Tepora and Oriwia Ruru, the former of Karaka, the latter of Tologa Bay.

Wiremu Ruki. Probable successors—Paki Ruki and Katerina Ruki—a minor, nine years—both of Tologa Bay.

J. C. H.

—

No. 3206.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND,
NORTHERN DISTRICT.

(Writ tested 23rd day of December, 1893.)

BETWEEN Arapeta Kurekure (otherwise known as Arapeta Rangiria)

and

Hapata Kahukahu, both of Paremeta, in the County of Cook, in this district, aboriginal natives, suing on their own behalf and on behalf of and for the benefit of all parties interested,

Plaintiffs;

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 Paremeta Block hereinafter mentioned.

4. That the Native Land Court of New Zealand, at a Court helden 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 Paremeta Block), and, in pursuance of the 17th section 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 Rangiuria, 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 persons 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 accordance 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 possession 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 defendant 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 defendant 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 conveyed 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 thereunder.

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 inquiry, 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 application 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 mentioned 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 consideration-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 inquiry, 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 subsequently 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