Next, there is an agreement from the principal owner of the Block, one Hoani Mataia (who died in February 1873) to sell the same to Mr Mitchell, but as this agreement does not bear any date I am unable to say what its proper value or significance may be, but as Hoani Mataia died in 1873 it is reasonable to suppose that this agreement was entered into some time before his death, say 1872 or 1871.
The next is a document dated 24th October 1874 which is signed by Mataia (the above mentioned Hoani Mataia's father) and a considerable number of other Natives, and which is an agreement to sell the block Puru-o-te-Rangi to Mr Mitchell. None of these agreements referred to are registered, they being all made previous to the land passing the Native Lands Court.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Natives in signing this document intended to convey the Puru-o-te-Rangi block to Mr Mitchell, but this was in August 1874 and subsequent to the first notification by the Government of its intention to purchase the Ohinemuri Gold Field, such notification would therefore bar Mr Mitchell from completing the purchase inasfar as any portion within the Gold Field boundary line is concerned.
The previous documents to this, viz 'Bailey to Mitchell' in 1871 and 'Hoani Mataia to Mitchell' are the only other papers that Mr Mitchell has to base his claim (which I believe to be a genuine one) with the exception of items of account for stores etc in his day book But Mr M. has been in bona-fide occupation of this block since 1871 since he bought Bailey out, and he also states that he was engaged cutting timber for fencing on the Ruakerikeri block some time during 1871. Mr M. also states that it was understood between himself, Mr Mackay (on behalf of the Government) and the Natives at the time the Gold Field boundary line was fixed, that the fixing of such line was not to prejudice his (Mr M's) title to the land he had bought, and, from enquiries I have made from one or two natives regarding this matter, I believe Mr Mitchell's statement to be correct. Mr M. himself paid for the survey of these blocks, and was at considerable expense in putting them through the Court, but he found on these blocks coming before the Court that only such portions that were outside the Gold Fields line could be adjudicated upon. Judgement was given concerning the portion of these lands outside the Gold Fields line in June 1877, and Mr Mitchell then made his title a legal one over that portion of those blocks by getting the Natives who had been found owners by the Court to sign his deed of conveyance, but he was debarred from getting a legal title to the portion within the Gold Field, as the Court would not adjudicate upon it.
In the meantime, Messrs Michael and John Hennelly, and Patrick O'Neil had taken up in agricultural leases of 50 acres each (under Goldfields Act 1866) portions of the land which Mr Mitchell claimed to be his by purchase from the Natives, and in order still to retain possession of the same, Mr Mitchell says he had to buy these people out at a cost exceeding £100, and has to continue paying to the Government a yearly rent of £2–10–0d for each section. Mr Mitchell is therefore it appears in legal possession of the whole of the Block, but such possession has only been obtained, and can only be retained, by the above mentioned means.
Mr Mitchell's agreements from the Natives show the boundaries in writing, and from this he caused a survey to be made, one of the principal owners (Hopihona) accompanying the surveyor on the ground to point out the boundaries.
The names of the blocks claimed by Mr Mitchell are Ruakerikeri (which includes Te Huruhuru) and Te Puru-o-te-Rangi No 2.
On my enquiring from Mr Mitchell as to what rights are that he claims, he stated that he claims the rights of a purchaser prior to the Government having negotiated the sale of the lands, and stated that he was in bona fide occupation of these blocks in June 1871 and has been ever since. He also stated that verbal promises regarding his being allowed to complete his title to these blocks were made to him, both by Dr Pollen and Mr James Mackay, and he further states that in 1873, whilst Mr Ormond was Native Minister, a promise was made in the House to respect his right, which promise (Mr M. says) appears in the Hansard of the House of Assembly and refers to his particular case.
22