TRUSTEE OR OWNER?

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 51, 2 March 1931, Page 3

TRUSTEE OR OWNER?

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE.

«LONG BURNING FIRE."

CLAIM AFTER MANY YEARS.

Whether two blocks of native land in the North were given as a trust to Aperahama Tainui, a Christian teacher in the 'seventies, or whether they were handed to him as a gift pure and simple, was the point at issue before the Native Appellate Court this morning. Judges Jones, MacCormick and Browne were on the Bench. Messrs, A. G. Quartley and L. Phillips appeared for the first appellants, Mr. E. C. Blomfield for the second appellants, and Mr. L. W. Parore for the respondents. Tiie land in question is situated in the Dargaville district. It comprises the Oturei and the Okapakapa blocks, of 2400 acres. It Avas given to Aperahama in the 70's, and when he died he left it to his wife, who finally left it to four persons whose interests Mr. Blomfield was watching. Discussion on Custom. Much discussion on Maori custom, both domestic and legal, was given during the hearing of the case. The contention of Mr. Quartley was that the land was held by Aperahama as a trustee. He had gone there with his followers, and they had settled on the land together. The word "follower" was vague and indefinite, said Mr. Quartley, and particularly so after the lapse of years. It might mean those who believed in the teachings of their leader, those who followed and lived with him, or those who merely went with him. He then quoted authority to show that a trust must be definite, and in this case it was the very reverse. The land, therefore, should revert to the original donors. Object of Trust Indefinite. Where the land was given and the recipient had no heirs it was customary for the land to go back to those who had made the gift. He submitted that it should be so in this case. "If a trust was intended," he said, "the objects were so indefinite that this Court can give no effoct to them. There is still a trust, but it is a resulting trust back to the people who gave the land." That the land was made simply as a gift was the assertion of Mr. Blomfield. Had he been allowed to call witnesses, hs said, he could have proved that this was so. He contended that the examination of the Court was limited to the intention of the parties concerned at the time of the making of the gift. There were several statements to show that the gift was to that man alone. "Many of the appellants have waited for a great many years before coming forward with their claim," added Mr. Blomfield'. He hoped that the Court would prevent people coming forward after the lapse of years and trumping up charges. "The rights of the donors were extinguished years ago, according to the tradition and the custom of my people," said Mr": Parore. The old custom, he said, would be called in English "the long burning fire," and referred to the long and undisturbed occupation of the land by those who at present lived on it. Many of the descendants were unfavourable towards the appeal. , The Court reserved decision.