NATIVE LAND TANLE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 50, 28 February 1916, Page 2

NATIVE LAND TANLE.

- I . If-y-.-. ....•■■ 11 "LAND REGISTRAR IKVOI.VED. lA MATTER OF PRECEDENCE.The hearing, of a complicated native land case, presented some; features of interest,- '. -was commenced before his •Honor Mr. Justice .:Gooper at the Supreme Court.this, morning.' The matter at. issue was the right claimed by a European to a piece 6i native land under an unregistered lease, arid a similar right 'claimed by a native : . under an u.vchange order and a partition order made by thb Native Land Court (Subsequent to the I memorandum lease;' The plaintiff was Herbert Smith," .of Hamilton, farmer (Dr. H. D. Bamford and Mr. E.. C. Blomfield), and the joint dependents were Tbka Hotehc-(Mr, A. G. Quartley), and the District Lands Registrar (Hon. J. A. ToIe ) ,JS.C). .... ... .'.-.:.•'; . The facts,, bf the- case, as set out oy Dr. Bamfofd,, jvere briefly as follows:— In August, 1908, two natives named Te Hauiti Tahatika and Kcreugti Rangiwaerea 'obtained, under a", partition, order, the ownership of a block of land known, as Maungatapu B, No/2. In .tune, 1,911, they executed a memorandum of lease of the block "ib ttie .plaintiff. The latter applied- to the Waiknto - Mahiapotb Native. Land Bqnrd,. a month later, co have the; .memorandum confirmed, but owing to certalni.prbbihition proceedings, .initiated by other parties, the application had to be held over till June, 1914, when the prohibition procecdirigß -Were withdrawn, the confirmation being made in September. 1914. ProVious to this, in January, 1913. while the application for connrinatibn was still before the Roard, an order was made by the Kative Land Cbiift authorising the exchange of the property, for another Owned by the defendant Toka. Hotehc, arid in the fblloVvihg May a partition order was made cutting offYth.e.iand.in his favour. In -Febnia-sy,'' 1915, tlie 'prainfuT " Smith caused a .provisional rcjrister to be ppened. under Jhc .land Transfer .Act, and lodged.a caveat to protest his ihIn.tbc following August the defendant lodged a similar caveat. Fbllb wing on-this the District Lands Registrar notified tlie plaihtiff that a deed relating; to the partition order in, defendant's favour had been presented for registration, arid later, when plaintiff's lease, was presented,.for registration, the latter was refused. Plaintiff now claimed precedence for bi3 lease over the partition Order, and sought to compel the redatration of the lease. The ease is proceeding.