APRIL 12.] THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE. 569

Paremata Block to the defendant company; but the Court, consisting of Judges Barton and Von Stürmer, having refused to inquire into the circumstances attending the manner 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 application be dismissed, and the said Judges added as a postscript to such report as follows:—“Paremata: The application 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 dismissed 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 eighteen Natives, in addition to the restrictions imposed by “The Native Land Act, 1875.”

28. The said Chief Judge has caused to be indorsed in the certificate of title signed by him on the 25th day of June last a certificate and declaration in favour of the defendant company, in pursuance of sections 59, 60, and 61 of the Act of 1875, and has announced his intention of signing the same, and of making a recommendation to the Governor to cause a certificate of title under the Land Transfer Act to issue to the defendant company, which if he is permitted to do without further inquiry, then the plaintiffs and all the other Native owners of the said block will be deprived of their land.

29. Neither the defendant Chief Judge nor the Court has made the inquiry, nor obtained the assent of all the owners to such sale, as provided in section 59 of “The Native Land Act, 1873,” and neither the said Chief Judge nor the Court has explained to them, the plaintiffs and the other owners, the effect of such sale, as provided by section 60 of the said Act.

30. The plaintiff Arapeta Kurekure is one of the said eighteen Natives to whom the certificate was issued, and he says the provisions of sections 59 and 60 of the Act of 1873 have not been complied with, and that he was not present at any such inquiry, and never assented in Court or elsewhere to the alleged sale to the defendant company.

31. The plaintiff Arapeta Kurekure is one of the Native owners who signed the document dated the 15th day of March, 1882, before the said block was subdivided. He never received any consideration therefor, and had no knowledge until lately that the Court awarded his interest in the said block to the other eighteen Natives.

32. The certificate of a Trust Commissioner under “The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1881,” has not been indorsed on nor obtained for the deed of the 15th day of March, 1882, signed by him, the said Arapeta Kurekure, and the other owners signing the same.

33. The plaintiffs and the other Native owners have not sufficient lands left for the maintenance and support of themselves and their families.

34. That the defendant company has, by an order of this honourable Court, been ordered to be wound up, and the defendants John Blair Whyte and George Schultz Kissling are the liquidators of the said company.

Wherefore the plaintiffs pray this honourable Court to order and decree,—

1. That the alleged deed of the 15th day of March, 1882, made by the plaintiffs and other Native owners when the title of the said block was held under “The Native Land Act, 1867,” to the defendant company was and is absolutely void, and that the interests of the plaintiffs and other Native owners in the said block did not pass thereunder.

2. That the order of the Native Land Court, dated the 5th day of April, 1882, awarding the undivided interests and shares of the plaintiffs and the other eighty Native owners whose names are mentioned in the said order is absolutely void and of no effect, and that the said order was made contrary to law, and is of no effect whatsoever; or, in the alternative, that this honourable Court do order and decree that the names of the plaintiffs and of the other Native owners who signed the deed of the 15th day of March, 1882, be inserted in such order, and also in any and every certificate of title issued by the Native Land Court in pursuance of such order.

3. That the certificate of title awarding the 8,475 acres to the eighteen Natives named therein, signed by the Chief Judge on or about the 25th day of June, 1890, and antedated to the 5th day of April, 1882, be declared void and of no effect, and an order be made to have such certificate cancelled.

Or, in the alternative,—

That this honourable Court do order a decree that the names of the plaintiffs and of all the other Natives signing the deed of the 15th day of March, 1882, be inserted in the said certificate of title issued in favour of the said eighteen Natives named therein.

4. That this honourable Court do declare that the said Court, in ordering a certificate of freehold tenure to be indorsed on the said certificate of title, did not comply with the provisions of sections 59 and 60 of “The Native Land Act, 1873,” before ordering such indorsement to be made, and that such order is of no effect.

5. That this honourable Court, after hearing all the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs, do declare that the certificate of title ordered to be issued on the 5th day of April, 1882, awarding 7,974 acres of the Paremata Block, was issued by the said Court to the said eighteen Natives named therein on false evidence of existing fact produced to the Court by the defendant company, through the fraud of the said defendant company, and through deceit practised on the said Court by the defendant company.

And the plaintiffs further pray,—

(a.) That this honourable Court may be pleased, by its order, to compel the defendant Chief Judge and the Native Land Court of New Zealand to perform the duties imposed on the said Court by sections 59 and 60 of “The Native Land Act, 1873,” before indorsing on the certificate of title an order of freehold tenure, and before recommending to the Governor the issue of a certificate of title under the Land Transfer Act in favour of the defendant company.

(b.) Also to compel the said Chief Judge to insert, or cause to be inserted, the names of the plaintiffs and all the alleged vendors before subdivision of the said block in the said certificate of title, in addition to the names of the eighteen Natives named in such certificate of title.

Or, in the alternative,—

(c.) That this honourable Court do compel the said Chief Judge to cancel and declare to be void the subdivision orders made by the said Court on the 5th day of April, 1882, and to hear any application made or to be made by Natives interested in the said block for a subdivision of the said block. That the defendants, except the defendant Chief Judge, be ordered to pay the costs of and incidental to this action. That the plaintiffs and the other Native owners of the said block of land may have such other judgment or relief as this honourable Court, after hearing the evidence, may consider them entitled to.