Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  


    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 32

Enclosure No. 2

Enclosure No. 2.

Memorandum respecting the case of George Beadon.

Commissioner F. D. Bell

On the 3rd February, 1841, Mr. Gordon Sandeman, of Sydney, notified this claim, on behalf of Mr. Beadon, to a tract of land containing 15,360 acres, on the East Bank of the river Piako. The claim was gone into by Commissioner Godfrey, at Coromandel, on the 8th June, 1844, when Mr. W. E. Cormack gave the following evidence:—

"I appear as agent for George Beadon, and withdraw his claim, No. 43," William Eppes Cormack. In giving evidence on his own claims, Mr. Cormack, on the 10th June, 1873—74, says further, "derived from these two claims there were claims of ________ George Beadon, No. 43, ________ for whom I am empowered to act, and whose claim I withdraw. The claims of ________ I am empowered to pursue by the same power."

A great number of protests were lodged against Cormack's claims by the natives. Commissioner Godfrey recommended a grant of 2,560 acres, but none has been issued yet, the condition being that the natives would point out the boundaries.*

Part of Cormack's claims appear to have been transferred to George Graham, Ordnance Clerk, who brought them before me in 1857. page 11 I told him he must make a survey, which was always the difficulty, on account of native opposition. In the same letter I said, I draw your attention, to which you appear to bo unaware, that Cormack sold a large part of his claims to other parties, and that it is possible they may come in for a share; still, the fact is, I did not see "what authority Cormack had to withdraw claims he had not sent in," but which he admitted were derived from his own purchases. Beadon cannot now come in for a claim separate from Graham's. Graham represents Cormack and a whole lot of Willis' people, because, under any circumstances, the maximum of 2,560 acres would not be allowed to be exceeded.

But if Beadon did not authorise Cormack to act for him, and it could be proved not binding, he could, upon Graham filing the notification, which I believe will be done before the time expires, give notice of a subsisting interest in the original purchase, always supposing ho thought it worth his while to go in for his small portion of the 2,560 acres.

Beadon seems under the impression that he owns £15,000 acres and had better be undeceived.


Francis Dillon Bell.

* Were not these protests made by natives on the West bank of the piako, where Cormack never purchased in error. Koenaki and the Ngatipoa Tribe always remained friendly, and always said, as the survivours say now, they sold the land in Cromack's Deed to him.