But a fresh objection is now made, in that, on the purchase of the blocks 9 years later, a promise was made by Mr Mackay as L.P. agent that Government would pay survey. Opportunity will be afforded to prove this new objection. Failing proof, the order must be granted.51
The Court therefore adjourned the appeal, to give the opportunity for Mackay to give evidence.52
Following Mackay's evidence being given, the Court in August 1901 gave its decision.
In view of the positive statements made by Mr Mackay, unshaken on cross-examination, that it was part of the agreement made by him as agent of the Crown, with the Native vendors, that the Crown should pay the cost of the surveys of the parts retained by the Natives, the Court feels bound to hold that the Natives are not liable for the cost of any of these surveys, so far as they are surveys of partitions made since, and therefore refuses to make the Charging Orders asked for.
It is true that Mr Mackay could not show authority in writing to make such an agreement with the Natives, but the Court sees no reason to doubt his statement that he was often given a free hand to settle terms with the Natives according to his own direction.
Though it is not now the custom to survey reserves or other unsold parts free of cost to the Natives, such appears to have been the general practice in earlier days, when also much smaller prices were paid for the land.53
50Coromandel Minute Book 8 page 371. Supporting Papers #J7.9.
51 Coromandel Minute Book 8 pages 371–372. Supporting Papers #47.9–10.
52 Hauraki Minute Book 50 pages 192–198.
53 Decision of Appellate Court, 6 August 1901. Lands and Survey Auckland file 4017. Supporting Papers #E3.1.
48