On reading his letter to them and asking for an explanation, they said that their names had been signed without their knowledge.
I tried many times to get Hirawa Te Moananui and his people together that I might hear from themselves the grievances alleged in their petition to Parliament dated July 1881, referred to Government by the Native Affairs Committee, but they would not attend, and altogether very little interest was shown by the Natives in this matter.
June and. Up to today 56 of the grantees had come to me with complaints that they had received only a portion of the money due to them on the sale of their interest in the land. Each account had been explained and in general they were satisfied, as in most cases they were found entitled to a further payment of money.
At this stage of the proceedings I learnt that several of the grantees did not intend to come to the Court, having been informed by their friends that the Court would not sit. Those who were in Paeroa were informed that on Monday the Court would commence its work, and that such grantees as had not sold their interest in the land would have their acreage cut out from each of the blocks in which they were interested. Notice was also given that on Saturday 3rd June I would commence to pay the balances of money due to the several grantees who had proved their claims.
June 3rd. The intimation made yesterday, that I would today settle the claims of those who had not received full payment for their land at the rate of 5/- per acre, caused my office to be filled with grantees who had hitherto kept back, and were now anxious that their cases should be looked into. After settling by money payment with Pineaha Te Wharekowhai and Timotiu Te Hata, whose claims had been previously enquired into, I devoted the remainder of the day to the hearing of fresh cases. Up to the present my enquiries had been mainly in the direction of ascertaining what objections would be brought before the Native Land Court to prevent the completion of the sale of the land to Government by an Order of the Court. One difficulty had in great measure been removed by my promising those grantees who had not received their full payment at the rate of 5/- per acre, that any balance due to them would be paid during the sitting of the court. That such balances were due to them arose from the fact that the deed of conveyance of the land to the Crown was signed before the title to the land had been investigated by the Native Land Court, by any and every resident Native in the Ohinemuri District who claimed to have an interest in the block, rightly or wrongly; and who on signing the deed received a payment, in some cases £2, in others £6, and that many others were found to have large interests.
Another difficulty to be met arose in the case of such grantees as had not sold, and would not sell, their share in the land. These people claimed as tenants in common to have as much right to the ground as those who had sold to Government, and also to a share in the Gold Fields revenue that had been received up to date. They also complained that the best of the agricultural land had been leased, that it was not fair now to compel them to take their share in the land that remained. They said that they did not wish to disturb the lease until Government had received the sum of £15,000 as agreed upon by the terms of the said lease, but that after the payment in full of this sum they should claim their right to the land and to a share in the Gold Field revenue "equal in proportion to that of Government".
Other objectors were men who denied their signatures or ever receiving moneys other than as a gift. I am sorry to say that in many cases such denial was obviously untrue.
Having so far completed what work was possible in settlement of disputes outside the Court, it now became necessary to fix upon some line of action whereby best to prove, to the satisfaction of the Court, the purchase of each of the grantees' interests in the several blocks of land (twenty one) known collectively as the Ohinemuri Gold Fields block. In similar cases, the evidence that has been hitherto adduced has been the deed of conveyance, but in this case the Deed is a very imperfect document, signed by many of the grantees before they had any legal title to the land, and without any consideration money being stated in the Deed. These and other defects in the
32