ORAKEI LAND.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 192, 16 August 1938, Page 11

ORAKEI LAND.

OLD CHURCH SITE.

MAORI'S CLAIM FAILS.

PROPERTY OP THE CROWN.

Judgment against the Maori petitioner was given yesterday afternoon by Mr. Justice Reed in his reserved decision in the Orakei land case in which a native woman, Whatitiri, claiming prescriptive title by use and residence to an area of three acres 36 perches of Orakei land, petitioned for £650 damages against the Crown for alleged wrongful entry. Traversing the evidence and argument in the course of a long judgment, his Honor noted that the basis of petitioner's claim was occupation of the old house successively by Hori Pairimu, his wife, Erana Pairimu, her neice, Parateuanga Poni, and her daughter, Whatitiri, tne petitioner, which she claimed gave her a title by prescription, in that they had lived there lor 20 years visibly, continuous, manifestly and openly. The Crown claimed ownership o f the land ag hayi deeded to the Crown by the native owners in 1838 upon trust to grant it to the Anglican bishop for church, burial and school purposes, so granted subse- ?™ y \ apd stin later ' in the y ear 1926, sold back to the Crown by the Anglican bishop.

In reviewing the evidence given, Ins Honor commented . that it was shown that Hori Pairimu and other natives were in occupation then by permission of the church trustees. There was no evidence that Hori Pairimu, a large landholder, paid rates in respect to thie particular section, and there was evidence that he acknowledged the ownership of the church trustees., and that in permitting the natives to stay on the land the trustees were acting in the spirit of the trust that it was to be for the benefit of the natives. It was quite clear he had no right to clear other natives off the land, and when the sale to the Crown was contemplated the only claim by the natives was for compensation for money spent on the houses.

There was, eaid his Honor, no suggestion that any claim was set up then or at any other time to the individual right of petitioner's ancestors. Later a commission before Judge Acheson was held and no claim was eet up. "The suppliant," he added, "has not satisfied me that the trustees, were ever dispossessed, or that the suppliant, or those through whom she claims, had exclusive possession of the land. If this case had, instead of being framed ae a claim for the proprietary .rights of one individual, been framed as a claim for a title by prescription to the general body of natives belonging to the hapu and the members of which occupied the land, they would still have been met by the insuperable objection that the trustees had never gone out. of possession."

Judgment wae for the respondent (represented by Mr. V. R. Meredith) with costs. Mr. J. J. Sullivan appeared for the suppliant.