I know of no statutory authority that the Attorney-General as Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General as Solicitor-General has to declare that the land is Crown land. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are both high officers of State. They are legal officers, and they can appear as solicitors or counsel for the Crown, but there their functions and powers end. Their statement as to what is Crown property unless made in accordance with some statutory power, is of no avail. If in an action they put in a plea to that effect, it would have to be proved like any other pleading of a party to the action. The Solicitor-General has failed to cite any authority that the mere statement of the legal adviser of the Crown, or the Crown's Attorney or Solicitor-General, was to be taken as a true averment without proof. What the customary title to the bed of Lake Rotorua may be must be considered and determined by the only Court in New Zealand that has jurisdiction to deal with Native titles--the Native Land Court. At common law there may be an ownership of the bed of navigable rivers or lakes that are non-tidal. See Kent's _Commentaries_, vol. iii. p. 427, note (_d_). The case of _Mueller v. Taupiri Coal Mines, Ltd._, 20 N.Z.L.R. 89, turned on the effect of a grant under the Land Acts. I am of opinion that it is not necessary specifically to answer the questions put, but only to say that the plaintiff and his people have a right to go to the Native Land Court to have their title investigated, and that the Native Land Court can only be prevented from performing its statutory duty, first, under the Native Land Act, secondly, on proof in that Court that the lands are Crown Lands freed from the customary title of the Natives, or, thirdly that there is a Crown title to the bed of the lake.