TE AKAU BLOCK.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 196, 18 August 1913, Page 7

TE AKAU BLOCK.

rRIYY COUNCIL DECISIOX

A copy has been received of the decision delivered by the Lord Chancellor for the Privy Council in the appeal from the judgment of the Native Appellate Court of New Zealand from a partition order of the Te Akau block between two tribes of natives, by whom tiie land was held in common. There were present at the hearing before the Privy Council the Lord Chancellor. Lord Shaw", Lord de Villiers. Lord Moulton. and Sir Samuel Griffiths.

The area in dispute was 11,230 acres, and the Tainui tribe appealed against the Taliingas. The judgment was given m 1007. and the land awarded to the Tahingas. hy whom it was sold to the N.Z. Oovernment.

The history of the case is interesting. In LS.H the Maoris were in rebellion. Amongst the steps taken to bring the rebellion to an end was- the N.Z. S'cttloments Act of ISfia. By {section 2 the dovernor-in-Cotnicil was empowered to declare that any district within which there was situated land which was in the possession of natives in rebellion since the beginning of ISO", should ho a district within the provisions of thai Act. The land C(juld thus be taken for settlement purposes, but clause ii provided for compensating, persons who should have any title if they were not coneeraed in the rebellion. An amending Act in IStio gave power to make such compensation by giving land instead of money. An Order-in-Council provided that all rebel inhabitants of the district who came in within a reasonable time to make submission would receive a sulJtcient quantity of land under grant from the Crown. It was argued that this extinguished al! native title to the whole land referred to.

Tlie Privy Council were of opinion that the Ordc.r-in-C-ounci! of 1565 did not extinguish the nartive or other -title of any loyal inhabitant. In ,-o holding they agreed with the judgment under review

At a. ('ompon.so.Uon Court held in ISGii, the loyal male menvbers of both tribes claimed, in regard to a*n area of LTS.OOO acres. It ™s he-kl .there were 77 loyal and 44 Tebvl male natives, and the loyal revives were a warded 94.0(13 it-.-res. Lal._r on the number of fgrantoos was increased to BS. to whom the Crown granted •the Te Akati block, to hold -s tenants in common. In IS9I the Native Land Court divided the block into If) parcels and detoTmi-ned the relative inbe-rest-s of the respective owners. In IS9U, on the -a.pplication of the T.urnuis a robe—.ring of .the pa.rrt.ition proeee-i'mgs took place ami the block was divide.! into tiha-ee parts. Of this 28,152 acreis were aw_rd'cd the Tainui ti-abe and ITI.OOS acres to the Tahinga tribe. The judgment of 1804 appeared .to he on the assumption thai! tne Crown grant of 1R74 had been made without reference to any _a,tivie title or tribal boundary. As the result of petitions, a commission was nppaokl-tod to inve-stigate tiie question. The. effect of the iK_rt—-ion order lid— been to a.wa.nl lo .the Tavnui's not ortly th ear own land n.s occupied anyl owned by them prior to Ifitlfi, Imt in addition 11.2ntj acnes northward, forming part of tlie 1a.n.1 owned by the Taliingas.

This w"„s the territory in dispute, the. appeal being by 'Mann Kapua and others v. Para Haimona oind another. The ehiie-f judge of .the Nartive Land Court .in 1905 deol—ted to give effect to the rcocrnime——a—ions of the Commission of 1894, holding that the native title had beccn c-cttngaishe*l by ihe Or_er-in-Coun-cil of ISG.I, also that the 'boundary line proposed by the Commission v.-—.x arbitary: probably -wrocs. and, inapplicable to l.h.i- actual eircumsUnoeis. !n !4f17 Judges -Brown and Mair reconsidereid the. partition ipiestion and gave judgment, t—king the 11,236 acres from tlie Tainuis and rosrfcoring it to Hie Taiihangag as re-comme-idoi by the CoramissJon of 1904. Then followed the prcsc-nt apnea!. The Privy Council held:—-"-That the only teal question of law in the case is that as to the extinction of the native title, as to which their Lordships have already inUmatcd an opinion adverse io the appellants. Taking this view, they think that there were materials on which the court below might properly find, as they did, the fact of the ancient boundary between the two tribes. .Having rog_rd to the history of the case and to the terms of Section 26 of the Act of 1906, they do not consider that any admissions ntade by the male grantees at the. Compensation Court of LS6fi or the receipt of rent in subsequent years, should, us the appellants argued in their printed case ait the Bar, have furnished the tests lo be applied by the' court below. iXor do they think that the i "equities" directed by Seelion 2li to he taken into -oeoimt were confined io these or any other -particxilar funs or to apparent acquiescence by the grantees I or their representatives in a supposed : basis of equal rights. Indeed the his-1 tory of the case displaces lhe inference, of such acquiescence. They will there-j fore humbly ad-rise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs."