THE SAMOAN LAND CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 235, 6 October 1886, Page 2

THE SAMOAN LAND CASE.

Judgmont of tho Court,

Wis append in extenso tho judgment delivered »n the Supremo Court of Appeal at Fiji in the action brought by Manaoma (a native woman) and others against VV. McArthur and Co., for tho recovery of f-omo 300,000 acres of Samoan lands, alleged to havo boen wrongfully soixod and Occupied by tho dofondants, together with damages for trespass and appropriation of produce. Mr \V. J. Napior argued tho caso for tho plaintiffs, and Mesars Garrick, Q.C., and Irviuo appeared for tlio defendants. Tho judgmont,which ia for the plaintiffs, ieaa follows : -

MANAEMA AND OTHERS V. MCARTHUR AND CO.

This is an action brought by ono Mimacm", a native woman of Samoa, iv tho Navigator I.landa, iv the Western Pa:iflc. and Junius Sinclair, Hugh Hart Lusk, and, William MaihieSOll, British subjects, ug.niat William McArihur aud Co. f t recovery of ijoase.sian of curtain lands ia Samoa alli-ged 11 have beon wiongtuby seiZ'd by defondunty, and 'a.- d.lnax>is for trespass. 'I ho Deputy Commissioner at Samoa has given judgnun: for thedcfondaii's, ami thecasjeomea beforo tho Sup erne Court of Fiji on api oal. Ma.aoma claims to b_ emitted to tho lam 0 in question under a (onvoyaucu from one Frank Cornwall, a man with whom she has been living at Samoa for some years. Tho other plaintillclaim under a lo _c puriiortiug to be executed by Manaoma " by her attorney, Frank Cornwall," whereby for the couuidoratiou of £-0 the lands included in the convnyanc. to Macaema wero leased to Messrs Sindair, Lu.k, ond Maihieson for tho spuco of ono year from tho Bth of Uecembe' las*'. Throe objection! are taken to tho jui'i ■iii.iion of tho Higii.Commissioner's Court, twoot which relato to tho p.ra_n_ of the litigants, and th_ other to iho subject matter of tho action. _ ho.o relating to tho pel sous of the litigants d-p_nd upon iho meanii gaud effect of the Ist and 3rd clauses ot tho 6th ariiclu of tho W"o3tein Pacific Order-ia-Council of 1877, under which Hor Britannic Majesty's High Commissioner's Court for ihe Western Pacific is const i in ltd. and Its powers and jurisdiction dellnod and limited. 'Ihe article is as tollows:— This order applies to—l. AH British subjects, for iho timo boing.witliin the Wc»toroPacillclela_nds whether resident thsro or not. 2. All British vessels, for tho time boing, within the waters tnon ioned in article 5 of ilhh oruor. 3.Foreigner. In tho cades and according to the conditions in|thi_ order specified, but not otherwise. Fir.tlj, tha defendants object that, ut the timo of action brought, thoy wero not 'witrin" th. Western Pacifio lßlands. . ho wilt la addressed to Sir Wm McArthur and Co,, of Now Zealand and Samoa, and iho service, to which no objection waa taken, was eil'.cted at Samoa. No appearance is neoeasary under the practice of ihe Court, and none w.s entered. Article 65 of tfceOr_er-in-Louncil provides that thoro shall ordinarily be no written pleadings, but tho Court may at any timo, if It thinks fit, order the plaintiff to put in a written statement of hia claim, or a defendant to put in a written statement of his defe.ee, Presumably tho ordeis hero alludod to wero made in ibis cate, as written Btatcui.nts of claim and defence aro ainong.t the papers forwarded from Samoa In tho atatouienl of claim tho difO-duiitH aro licscrib.dua "Sir William McArthur. Alexander McArthur, Charles Cookman McMillan, and Frederick Larkins, all trading together and carryiiiK on business at Samoa, aud ulso at Auckland, as Win.-McAtUiui- and C 0.," and relief L claimed against " the defendants. Had the action been in a court where formal pleadings aro necessary, I Bhould have considered it doubtful whether tho pluintilfs were not concluded by ihe form of their Hitem.nl of claim from alleging that tho defendant, were sued aa partners in thoir partnership's name. Miuistor v. Ilailton, ia iho Court of Appeal, L.K., 11, Q B , 135, seems to show that by the preseut practieo of the Courts In Kugland, an aoiioa commenced, as know m_y be against a ll.in. may, by the form of tho statement of cliini, be c-averted iutu au action against ono or more individual partners ; but as ihe delivery of written siatoinonta, on either or both sides is. ia tho \VcHt--rn Pacific, a matter for tho judge's discretion." and aa It is provided by Act S-i, that 'every action i hall bo hoard and determined iv a summary way," I think that tho nature of tho action ano the form of the judgment must be determined by tho form of tho Writ, (dee the judgment of Lord Justice Brett in iho case ot Jackeon v. Jonn Mt.htleld « Sons. L.U. 8, Q.L. 471.1 The Order-in-Council (Artitfe 2'B) permits the suing of partners in tho name of tho firm, aud from tho form of tho writ lam of op niun that this c.urso has been adopted in tho pretent caso. Tho materiality ot th's point is. ihat whilo no ono of tho individual partnera of tho dotoDdanls llimis, or haa been, " within "iho Western Pacific, it is submitted that the firm or partners-hip is properly said lo be " in" Samoa, on account ot its business transaction - beiiu in th. t idac-'.Tiie evidence adduced at tbe trial did not show moro thin that iho defendants had for somo ytara been in the h .bit of doing businots in Samoa through agents, but on tho hoaring of the appeal an application waa mado to nio to admit tho affidavit of Mr Napier, the gentleman who otduc eu ihe pl_nutl'_' case, to tho elfo.t that defendants had a largo ttoro at Apia, in Samoa, at which thoy tradod and carried on business by servants and agents, and affixed to w hlch was a eiguboard with the worda " Wm. McArthur and C 0.," in large letters. 1 admitted this evidence on the ground that the very notoriety of the facts d-iptsed to might account frr thoir absence in tho evidence, and because 1 thought thoy woro material to tho uoint of .inri.dieiion. it seems to 1110 that tho locality of a firm most depondupen who eit regularly carries on business, and that the dolendanta" tirm havkni? a. permanent businebS o.tabli-hmcat both in Auckland and Samoa can be properly said "to be in" or ** within" tho.-o two places at the same timo. [ -cc the judgment of Mollor J. in the Buenos Ayro- aud Kusenada Port Hallway Co. v. the Northern Railwaj Co. of Buenos _>.} res. L.R . 2 Q.B D., 210. where tho parties who wero companies registered, and having offices In Lonaon, but domiciled and carrying on business in tho Argentine Republic were described as being "in" England and within the ju--!.- diction ot tho English court-.] The other objection on tho icore of por-onal iurisdiction isitint Manaema is not a " foreigner" within tho meaning of the 3rd clause of A-tide VI. of tno Order in C.uncll, and that tho Court cannot entertain the suit as far as sho ia concerned, becauso the application of the Order-in-Council is limited to British subjects and foreign -ra. " Foreiuner " is stated in the Definition Atticle (Ariiclo IV c) of the Order-in-Council to moan "a subject or citizen of a state in amity \vi__ Her Majesty," and tbe question whether Samoi ia a stato in amity with Her Majesty has been argued at length. Samoa may peihaps be deemed to be within son,e of the definitions of the word "state," to bo found iv works on international law and reported cases. In one ease cited to mo by Mr Napier (tho report of which be had not git), a tribe of American Indians (theCherokees) wasdescrlbed as a "state," but their political hlslory was. no doubt, much older than that of Samoa. Tho question, however, is in what sense tho word " state " is used in the Order-in-Cjunci). I was ai>ked to take judicial notice of the constitution of the kingdom of Samoa, a matter about which 1 havo only very .canty information -. and I was referred toa treaty dated the 2Sth of August, 1579, mado boiween Hrr Majeßty through the High Commissioner and tho King and G.vernm-nt ot Samoa, as showing that whatever was the political condiiionot Samoa at the date of theOrdtr-ia Council, it was now recognised as a statu iv amity wi'h Her Majesty. Clause V. of this treaty provides th*t every civil suit which may be brought in Samoa again-t any .urject > f Her Msjosty shall be tried by tho Hi^h Commissioner or other duly authorised Uritlth officer; and clauso IV. contains a similar recognition of Her Moj s'y's exclusive criminal jurisdiction over British subjects. Theso clauaca Involve a recognition and confirm.tion of the juriadicion previously asserted, and teem to me to leave the position of Samoa with respect to that jurisdiction exactly where it was before. The Order-ln-C.uneil is immediately founded on ihe 6th section of the P_c fie Inlanders Protection Act, 1575. which provides: "It shall belawlul for Her Mnjonty to oxercise power and jurisdiction over Her subjects within any Islands in thel'aoiflc Uccan not being within Her Majesty's dominions nor within tho jurisdiction of any civilised powor in the fanio and in as ample a manner as If such power or juri.di.tion had boon acquired by the cession or conquest of territory, and by Order in Council to oreatc and cjnstituto the cflico of High Commis.ioner in, over, andf'o Hsueh islands and places, or Bumo of thorn, &c." In tho Ordor-in-Council itself iho Navigator Islands aro placed (Articlo VI.) in the samo category aa all the ether islands and places >0 which tbe Order apElies. and iv tho preamble ot tho Ordor tho^e ilauds and places aro referred to as "not b, ing within the juri diction of any civilised power." The conditions under whioh a "foreigner'" can sue or bo suedintho High .ommisaion-i'a Court are (Article 145> tbat ho first file the consent in writing of ihe coincctent authority on behalt ot his own nation to his submitting, and does not submit to the jurisdiction of the Court, and that If ordered to do co. ho fled seciuity far the duo performance ot any order that tha Court may make against hin.. Tho first condition is inserted to prevent any difficulty of an international nature whioh mi.ht ariso from tho mistaken assumption of jurisdiction over the BUbjoot of a foreign slate in a pla.e whero such stato may have equal rights with Her Majesty. Tho second condition is to prevent the possible injustice to BritißhMibjrets which might arise if the Court, aftor pronouncing ngalnstaforei.ntr who had voluntarily submit;<d to tho juritdiotiOD,found itself powerless lo give ell'-ct to its do croc. Iv tho determination of tho point under discussion. I have really only t-io Oi der-in-Council and tho statutes upon which it ia founded to guidome. It seems to mo by the Ordor-ia Council Samoa is in the samo pesition as all the other commuiiilioa ot tho Western Pacific over whioh-the jurisdiction of the Court oxtenda and if I am right in supposing that tho treaty docs not alter matters in this re .poet, it would follow that if Samoa ia to bedieniel a "stato" in amity Willi Her Majesty, other native communities haviDg (as most of ttcm have) somo form of government of thoir own, w ou'd como within tho same definition. I cannot supsres that the Order in-Council contemplates tho nicoesity of "tho consent in wiiiiug ot the competent authority " in places described as " not bticg within tho.jurisdiction of any civi.iscd power " and I think that tho whole tenor of the Orderin Counoil Hhow.-. that by tho word ' foreigner" ii meant tho nibject of a "foreign sate," as that express!- n is usually understood, viz , a Stato capab'e ot entering in o all international relations with Iho other nations of tho world. It is not, howover, necessary to purau. the inouiry further, because in my opl.ion the adjudication of a civil suit brought by a native Of tho We-tern Pacific [though not a foreigner] agajssta British subject in the High Co i mission Court is nothing but tho application of tbe Order-in-Councl to a British subject. In vol 1 of Phillimore's International Law, 2nd rd , p. 303,1 find a reference to the case of tho Laconia 2 Moore. P.C.->Rep.N,S..p. 85. TheirLordehips of tho Privy Council in their judgment faid :- "There is no oompulsory power In an English Court in Turkey over any bu_ E-ip-lish subji cts, but a Russian or any othor foreigner may if ho pleases, voluntarily resort to it with bho consent Ot his sovereign and thereby submit himself to Its jurisdiction. Taking into consideration the fact that the j urlsdictionr of tho Consular Court in Turkey is derived from and limited by tho concession of the Turkish Government, aud 13 therefore, at any rate, not more extensive than the jurisdiction over British subjects in the Western Pacific,! think that it may bo gathered from this case that even it the Order-in-Courcil had not expressly provided for " foreigners," theycoold with the consent of their own Government have su.d Btit'eh subjects in the High Ciirmisslon Court, and I ihlnk it further follows that wDen such a soneent is nit nocossarj- on interratinnal grounds, there ia nothing to prevent the Illkrh • 'ommission Court exorGi.ing its juriidietiou over a British subject at the suit of any plaintiff. Manaoma gave securiiy for coats, and filed the consent ot tha King of Samoa. The letter was a very proper precaution, whether necessary or not, and the security gives every proper safe- ! guard to the defendants. Under these circum- I stances, I have come to tho conclusion that ( Mnnaema has a right to sue. Tho nost objection .

to be dealt with ro'at.sto tho subject matt*r cf thu action. I', is said 'hut. thu (*jurt. cannot rncitain an action which Involves Iho title, to lmdatS mon. One of tho heads ef the piiiiiitifr IU-nncm.'s oiniin—viz , thai tho Court inny duels ra that she is the owner of the lanes ii q-ns-lion—l disini.'-s .ItoK'-.thi-i-from consideration as Doyond tho powers ot the Court and th. scope ot tho action; bat the main point i->, whether tho Co:rt can not directly upon tho land by meu-.s of an order for po'isc.-Hion. The Order iii-Counol), both in Artl'-lo 28i anil Article 57, recognis: s actions respect im- land in tho Western Pacific ; but It Is sin {rested tint thes. provisions do not moan that tha Court can go boyond tho powers cxeroi-nlile by the Knglish Courts rcipectinz for-eißi. land, it is, cf course. well known that iho Cuu.ts.f ICquity in Hntc land havo not hesitated to affect toieign lands by decrees binding poreonally upon thoso within tho jurisdiction and there appears to ho no distinction in this respect botween lane 8 in the colonies and lamia in foreign ct-ur,tries. In Crarstown v. Johnston. 3 art, 170, which wan a tint set aside a .judgment fraudulently obtained in rt. Kilts, whereby the jud.mcnt crsdilor had possessed himself of hia debtors. lands in the debtor's absence by mears of a forced sale. 'J h ■ Misicr of the It la (-.ir It. VArdcn) mid: "It waa not much litlgited that the Courts of Kquity here (in England) have an oqual right lo inttrforo -.-ith r. gurd to ,iu;g men 8 or mortgages up n lands in a for. ign country as upon l_n*is hero. Iho only ditltuction Is. that thi i Court cannot act vi on the land dit-ctly but acta upon the consoi"n. o if the person living hero." On the principle of nt a.t.ing diro.ily upon iho land, tho Knglfßh Conns havo always rcfti-cd order* for possession of land in a fori ign country iK.berrienn V. Kins. 1. Arlicle 513, In-ts. Hep. 23 and other cases c.tod in the notcH to Perm v. Lord Baltimore, 2. White and Tudor's Lciuimg Ca-e-) The reason of this refusal is I wofold. 1- irstly, l>v the principles of international law, every s'livi-roign State has iiarauioitnt iloinain ovci* the land within ils own territorial limits and therefore the title to real property can only be ai-qiiirud, possessed, and ,Inst according to tlio law of tho .Sovereign who has such paramount domain. In Jlnberdiaii v. Rous (abi _,up), Lord iliu-dwieke said that the Court had no jurisdiction to put persons in possession in v place where tliey had their own methods on such occasions to which tho party might have recourse. The other reason is that no Sovereign State hail the actual power to execute such of the decrees of its tribunals us afreet lo deal with land beyond the jurisdiction (loot, a Private International Jurisprudence, p. 120, 121). Such decree, if made, might be, as Lord Itoinilly said in Norria v. Chambers, 30 1.3., l_q. p "ti,. "a mere bruhim fitlmen, incapable ot being' practically enforced,'' 11 seems to me that the first, of these rc'a.oiis does not apply to the present fase, even if native law courts exist ut Samoa; the joint operation of the Order-in-Council und the treaty above alluded to would prevent any proceedings to disturb a Hritish subject in" possession of lands at Samoa being brought in any Com' t-ther than the High Commissioner's Court. The second reason lias perhaps a limited application. I doubt whether the Order-in-Council confers the actual power to directly enforce a decree for possession even as between British subjects, but as the Court hu3 jtu'isdiclion in Samoa over British subjects then I see no reason why I should not, decide the quostion of right to possession, leaving it to the plaint ill's, if I decide in their favour, to enforce the order if necessary, by any legal means which may ho open to them under the Ui'der-in-Couneil or otherwise. The Order-in-Council, while recognising actions respecting land, could I think hardly have intended that, in a case like this when both parlies trace Iheir claims lo possession from the same British subject, the Court could not decide between them. There is another objection which would until re< ently have applied in England to a claim either in eject ment or for trespass to land situate abroad. These forms of actions being "local in then' nature could by the Rules of Procedure huvo only been brought in the place where the land was situate. In my view il is not necessary to discuss tho effect of Ihe recent abolition of the distinction between -•local" and "transitory" venue because as the trial was held in the forum situa the objection would not apply. 1 merely mention thu objection because it formed matter ot urguint-nt. J now proceed to consider Ihe fails. On the ath February. 1579, Cornwall, who at that time was indebted lo the defendants in the sum of .Co,ool Is. 2d., conveyed the lands which are the subject of this action lo Manaeina by a deed which recites no valuable consideration, and which was admitted to have been purely voluntary. On the following day he executed a mortgage to a man named Nelson, of certain other lands expressed to be in consideration of a debt of ..10,000 owing by him to Nelson, hut which debt by Nelson's own admission hud no existence. Cornwall kept the conveyance to Manacma in his own possession, and lie und Manacma continued to live together on the land until he left for England in the middle of 18*0. Before leaving. Cornwall arranged for an advanco of £1,200 from a Mr Huge, which was repaid during bis absence from the produce of tho plantations. 1 hiring his absence, Manaeina no doubt remained in possession of the house and exercised some supervision over the plantations.|but I think it appears from the evidence that she was acting in the interest and for the benefit of Corn wad. and was generally regarded as his representative. Cornwall returned in Sept. ISSI, and resumed possession, but had left aguin before the seizure of the lands by defendants' agents holow- referred to. In July and November, IS7O, Cornwall had executed two' deeds of mortgage to the defendants of lands other than those conveyed to Manacma, the latter deed being apparently intended to be in substitution of the former. In lssi. the dcfcndalits sued Cornwall in Ihe High Commission Court for their debt, which was covered by promissory notes and obtained a judgment for the amount due tv them. This judgment was continued on appeal by the Supreme Court of Fiji, und at the same time the mortgages given to McArthur were ordered to be cancelled, why or under what circumstances does not appear. The defendant [afterwards took out a writ of seizure and sale of IConiwall's goods a?eor_ing to the form provided by the Order-in-Council (schedule form 10), and tinder this Ihe lands conveyed lo Manacma were taken in execution; a Mr lietherington, of Samoa, defendants solicitor, acting in the matter us he says in his evidence in the double character of agent for McArthur and Co. und ollicer of the Court. By MrHolherington's instructions these.lands |\vero offered for sale by an auctioneer and were bout-lit in by Mr lietherington on behalf of McArihur and Co. for £354. Manaema was turned out of possession of the house she was occupying, and the defendants have since claimed to be owners of the land in question and have exercised acts of ownership over them. 1 may say at once that I think ithe seizure and sale of the lands under the writ of ti fa was illegal and does not in the least justify the defendants' present possession, but this is not enough, because the plaintill's must make out their case notwithstanding the weakness of the defendants' position. It appeals, however, to he clearly established that as against a wrong-doer actual possession is a Rood title, and this would seem to be the case even though the plaintit'.'s fail in nn attempt to make out a legal title 'Davison and others v. Gent, 20 L.J.N.S. Ex. 122, Arbcr v. Whittock, L.H. 1211.1). On the ground therefore of actual possession of the house at the time of seizure Manaema, if there be no other defence is entitled to an order for posses^ sion because the lease which is jointly set up by herself and the other plaintill's was executed before action was brought. This lease is signed by Cornwall, as the Attorney of Manaema, and a copy of a written authority by Manaoma, purporting to constitute Cornwall Manaenui's attorney in all matters and reciting that "everything which hemuy do shall be deemed tohedone by me (Manaema) and shall he unquestioned by me," is produced as evidence of Cornwall's authority to make the lease. I have no doubt that the above recital expresses exactly the position Manaema was intended to "take. Everything that Cornwall did was, as is stated to be deemed to be done hy her, but I think that this arrangement was to suit Cornwalle' purposes, and not Manacma, and that the lease was really made by Cornwall alone with the object of enabling the lessees to sue in the High Commissioner sCourt. Whether this lease would bo good for every purpose or not the lessees have under it the permission of Cornwall (and, as far as it may be material, of Manaeina also) to take possession, and as the defendants trace their claim to possession also through Cornwall but without, in my opinion, showing any right at all, it seems to me that as against them the lessees have a right to succeed jin| ejectment, and as they made entry before action in trespass also. Butit issaid that against all the plaintiffs the caso falls to the ground because the conveyance to Manaema was fraudulent, and void, as against purchasers and creditors under the statutes 13, Elizabeth c. 5, and 27 Elizabeth, c. 1 respectively. The latter statute has no possible application. Judgment creditois aro not purchasers within the statute of Elizabeth of England (Bovan v Lord 0xf0n1.25 L.J.N.S. Ex. __.), and much less in tho \\ ostein Pacific; and William McArthur and Co. were not purchasers from Cornwall in any other sense. With respect to the former statute, I certainly think that from the ainouut of Cornwall's indebtedness at the time of the conveyance one cannot but assume that his intention was fraudulent, because, although it is stated that he had other lands of great value, the value, whatever it may have been, could not have i been realised. The fact, too, of his retaining the conveyance, the almost contemporaneous arrangement with Nelson the form of the so-called power of attorney, and tho application of tho produce of the estales for his benefit, all point in tho same, direction. Nor do I think that the mortgage to defendants makes any diltcrcncc. as I think ie was not accepted by them as full and sufficient security, for their debt, but that their agent being instructed lo get whatever security he could, look all tha' Cornwall would give. On the other hand, it is argued that thu Statute of Elizabeth has no application because land in the Pacific cannot be taken in execution, and therefore no creditor could be defrauded by Hie voluntary conveyance to Manacma. No doubt the Statute only applied to such properties is subject to execution, but although no writ of elegit or other execution against the freehold of land is provided for by the Order-in-Council, a creditor niay,undei-Article 270. apply for sequestration of the debtor's property after an order of arrest (as elsewhere provided by tho Order-in-Council) has failed to produce payment. I think that a voluntary a.nd fraudulent conveyance would, under the Statute, he void as against a sequestration duly issued, but I cannot understand how this c:-.n he a justification for a trespass where no order for an arrest or for a sequestration has been made or even applied for. Sequestration of the profits of an estate by an officer of the court is a very different thing lp a transfer by means of a forced sale, and even though a creditor may by some means or other be able to have execution against houses and plantations, itdoes jjot follow that he is justified in forcibly seizing them without resorting to the means provided hy law. On the question of damages, tho true position of Cornwall with respect to tho land has, in my opinion a very important bearing. lam satisfied that he and not Manaema, is the person who would have token any produce or profits of the lands and plantations if the defendants had not seized them, and that he would have done so in reality on his own account and not by virtue of any authority derived from Manaema. If Cornwall hail sought to recover damages in his own name for the loss of this produce, the defendants could have availed themselves of their judgment debt m answer to his claim It would therefore be obviously unjust to let Cornwa.'.l recover through Manaema and at the same time avoid his just rcsponsiblity. Manacma has in my opinion suffered no damage whatever beyond the personal inconvenience in being expelled from her home, and in estimating tlic amount (which, under Article 121,3 of the Order-in-Cquneil, I think I am justified in doing on the hearing ol this appeal), 1 cannot exclude my general knowledge of the mode of native ife in the South Seas. I accordingly assess these damages at the sum ot £00. for which amount Manacma will have judgment. Messrs Sinclair, Lusk, and Mathie.on had not proved that they had any intention or object in taking the lease other than bringing this action but as ho defence on the ground of maintenance is set up I think they are entitled to recover the £50, which it is not denied they actually paid. They are also in my opinion, entitled to possession, and there will he a declaration and order to that etl'eel anil a ' judgment in their favour for £50. The pluin'titr | "liana-ma. will have costs of the appeal, as well as costs in the Com t. below. The other plaint id's will have costs in the Court below, but not costs ! of appeal, as the appeal was entered on behalf I of Manaema alone.—(Signed) Fielding Clarke Suva, September 25, i._o.

His Honor then delivered formal judtrm_r,i.' reversing the decision of the High Commll' sinners Court at bunion, and aiinullini. __ order and adjudication, and awarding «, sum of & 0i) to the plaintill's and «___. co.>t.i of action, and decreeing that ti!. lessees of "Manaema are entitled to recover firm! McArthur _-. Co. possession of the whole nF th lands claimed, and that the judgment be d_i? ly-coidcd in the High Commissioner's Court nt Samoa. tt*

We understand that tho legal costß o both Bides will amount in the at'eregate «■ about X 2,. r)00. Me-srs McArthur ond Company havo had four years' occupation of tha lands which formed tho subject of th action, and as the amount awarded by the judge is .imply f or n legal entry and trespass, and nothing has been awarded for tho produce, action will probably bo taken by Manaema, as actual possessor, and Frank Cornwall .»_, equitable and dc jure, owner, fo'.. the recovety of tho produce profits ac cruintr during McArthur and Co.'s four years' occupation. This claim will then be put forward as a set off against Mr F Cornwall's judgment debt of £5,000 to Messrs MeAithur and Co. On tin. other hand, it is contended that no profitß what. over accrued from the produce, but that on the contrary tho lands have been worked at a considerable loss, while interest is a jj o c'aimed by the firm on the £5,000 which hao been owing by Mr Cornwall for a numberof years. Messrs Russell and Campbell (the legal advisers of Messrs McArthur and Co. in Auckland) inform us that the necessary instructions were left with the counsel at Fiji t_ give notice of appeal in the event of an adverse decision, and the case will therefore be probably carried before the Privy Council. They consider that the case of Messta McArthur and Co., through unexpected circumstances was inadequately placed before tlio Appeal Court in Fiji. ]____. Garrick, Q.C., who was to have drgu.d on their behalf was prevented from attending the court on the first day by the sudden llness of his wife, and Mr Irvine, who w__ unprepared, had consequently to take tib tho argument at Very short ttotic..