people have found that those three have dealt wrongly with the land and that a portion has been sold, that is why, the case having been put in my hands, that I apply to you and your Council under Section 39 of Act of 1894 for an enquiry into that land, that is to have rightful persons included therein.51
Judge Edger, who had been one of the two judges presiding over the hearing of the appeal in 1896, explained that
It was one of the usual cases where the owners generally agree that a part be cut off and vested in a few owners to facilitate sale to clear off survey charges etc. Hone Patene, acting as agent for the owners in general, said that the three persons could be trusted to deal rightly with the land and conserve the interests of the tribe. They were the leading men.
It was doubtless to provide better protection in cases like the present that Section To of 1896 was enacted.
The partition made in 19oz was a purely formal cutting out of the interest acquired by the Crown. The Court had no knowledge of the disposal of the moneys paid by the Crown.52 The Chief Judge then gave as his opinion that
As the order on which this complaint is based is an order of the Appellate Court, Section 39/ 1894 does not apply. The writer appears to be under a misapprehension as to the purpose for which the 3000 acres were cut off.53
As a result Mataraka was told in reply that
It seems that in 1896 the 3000 acres was cut off to pay for the survey and other charges, and in 1902 i5oo acres was awarded to the Crown on partition, 500 acres to Paora Tiunga, and woo acres to Epiha Taha.
If the people think that these persons were put in to represent others as well as themselves, then they should produce some proof that that is so.54
In November 1906 Hataraka wrote again to the Native Minister on the subject.
The reason for my application to you was on the following grounds. It was arranged by the owners of that land the Ngatihako that there should be three persons in that land, so as to facilitate the dealings with the encumbrances on that land. As will be seen by reference to the Hauraki Minute Book 41 page 199, where Hone Patene, the kaiwhakahaere of the case, stood up and said that there should be three persons for the 3000 acres, namely Epiha Taha, Paora Tiunga and Tame Hoani, the idea of the hapu being that they should be trustees for the hapu.
Well, subsequent to the question of those three being settled in the year 1896, two of them sold their interest. On the 13th August 1894, Paora Tiunga sold half his share to Charles Short for £150 for his own personal benefit. The interest of Tame Hoani was all sold by him, as will be seen in the file of Te Awaiti No z, 2206/4. The hapu did not get any benefit from those moneys, but they [the sellers] only did. Epiha Taha is the only one who has not sold.
In addition to Section 39 1894 [Act] is Subsection io of Section 24 1894 [Act].
51 Hataraka Manuhuia Poihipi, Okere Falls, to Native Minister, 21 November 2905. Maori Affairs Head Office file 2907/23. Supporting Papers #c6.1-3.
53 Judge Edger to Chief Judge Native Land Court, 4 January 2906, on Hataraka Manuhuia Poihipi, Okere Falls, to Native Minister, 21 November 2905. Maori Affairs Head Office file 2907/23. Supporting Papers #c6.1-3.
53 Chief Judge Native Land Court to Under Secretary Justice Department, 6 January 2906, on Hataraka Manuhuia Poihipi, Okere Falls, to Native Minister, 2,1 November 1905. Maori Affairs Head Office file 1907/23. Supporting Papers #c6.1-3.
54 Under Secretary Justice Department to Hataraka Manuhuia Poihipi, Okere Falls, 12 January 2906. Maori Affairs Head Office file 2907/23. Supporting Papers #C6.4.
20