THE NATIVE LANDS TITLE DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 11277, 19 May 1902, Page 3

THE NATIVE LANDS TITLE DISPUTE.

(PBESS ASSOCIATION TELEGHAM.) XATIER, Mar 16. At the Supreme Court to-day, an action was brought by Turei Waata, and others against John Hunter Brown and another, to hare seit- aside'a'certificate of title, and for the recovery of certain b'.oeks of land known as Tukemokihi, Nos. 1 and 2. Mr B.&ldwin appeared for the plaintiffs, 2>lr H. l>. Bell for the defendant Brown, and l Mr P. S. McLean for the defendant mortgagees. Mr Baldwin, in opening, said that this case was similar to the lust- The lnnd in disputa was native land, and that the. Kative Land Court/ acting on the consent of the natives, issued an order to ten natives without investigation. There were nutny other natives with equal rights, including, among otters, the plaintiffs. There was in t,lm case the further point, that with regard to some shares, Brown did not purchase direct from the native*, but from Mr C4eorge Burton. Mr Brown, subsequent to the purchase, put the land under the Land Transfer Act, and was the original holder of the certificate, so that he had not a higher title than he ; had previously. There was a further point—that there were certain mortgages on the title. He found himself unable to admit the validity of the mortgages submitted, and that, although registered under the Act, they were null. Evidence was adduced to show that when the Court sat to consider the question of title, aiid to issue the certificate, there were many natives living on the land, who were not included as owners. A dispute arose in the Court regarding a portion of the block, a native named Teopera claiming a part, about 230 acres, and this was, by consent, allowed to him. The Court had decided that one person was to (be selected from each hapu, and these were to act as trustees for the owners • generally. The J selection was made known to the people generally before the names were handed to the Court, and the tribes agreed to the names. After the Court sat the land was leased to Ueprge Burton, the natives continuing to cultivate the land after the lease without objection from Burton. Subsequently Mr Petre succeeded Burton in the leasehold, the natives remaining on the land until it was soul to Mr, Burton. When the sale took place objection was taken to it by some of the natives, and letters were sent by tiie tribe to the •Chief Judge, Mr Fen - 'ton, in July, 1873, in which it was pointed out that four of the writers were outside of tfhe Crown grant, and asking for redress, to return them a portion of the land, as they were grieved aboub it, having received j no money. . .'■■.. ' | His Honour suggested that counsel might at this- stage consider whether it would not <be wise to get the opinion of the Native , Land Court on the questions of native custom raised before the argument was taken. This opinion could !be got in a week's time from the Chief Judge. Mr Bell submitted that they were entitled to have all the i evidence taken first. I His Honour—"l only suggest it to ex- ■ pedite matters." Mr, Bell—"So far as tihs material before tbis Court is .concerned, I think there is ample 6n which the Court can determine for the defence. John Hunter Brown deposed that he bought what was called the "Whakaki Run" from Mr Petre, M.L.0.. and 'Mr Joseph Palmer, inspector of the Union Bank, which included the Tukemokihi blocks, and also bought out the shares of the natives who ! had previously not parted with their rights in Nos. 1 and 2 blocks. He FaS.never, heard of any person having a''better right to tbis property than himself until all this claim was made. He had spent something like £37,000 in improvements on the perty.XAPIER, May 17. Evidence, was concluded to-day. Mr, McLean applied to have the case dismissed as against the mortgagees. Addressing the Court, and quoting authorities, in. support of his application, he submitted that it was ■ important that the position of the mortgagees should ibe decided at once. If the Oourb- did not see its way, to grant the application immediately," it would go forth that there wag, at all events,'some. to 'whether ,3. mortgage given Tin«der the, ciraunsfcuHJes of.this case was a valid mortgage. (He was satisfied (and felt sure -his Honour would also be satisfied) that under the "Land Transfer Act, and on the authorities Tia had quoted, he was entit'ed to ask the Court to strike.<tufe th'a case so far as the. mortgagees were,concerned. It.wag possible that the Court might take the view that the mortgagees-, could not suffer by allowing the issues affect- • ing them to-stand'over for decision till the pther points were decided," but after careful consideration he had concluded thaiT it was his absolute duty to make the application at that stage. Mr Baldwin addressed the Court in reply, also quoting authorities in support of his contention that the mortgagees should not be discharged from, tbe - action. He Bubmited that there , was such an amount of donbfc in this matter, because of the wording of the Land Transfer Act, that ib (was •undoubtedly worthy of the most serious consideratioM. His point in a . nutshell was that the land had never been auenatied. His Honour said !he would not give his decision on"the point at once, .'but so far it seemed -to him that there was no case against the mortgagees. No decision in the matter wi.l "be given until all the cases nave been heard. An action to have the title to the Matapiro Block, Hawk-si's Bay, declared void was brought by Pihikete Takerei against W. Shriflvpton and others. Mr Baldwin, for the in open-, ing, said the case presented some features' similar to-the Wairost cases,~bufc in other" respects- .tlvere • w«re . differences. The ground of the'plaintiffs' claim was the same, namely, that certain natives were in rightful possession and occupation of the land in, question, and no due process of law had deprived them of their rights with regard to the land; and the Loan Company and the mortgagee's counsel would formally accept his Honour's decision on the point 'raised in the previous cause. He bef.ieved the original purchasers of the land were Messrs Shrimpton end Rich, and that it was subsequently divided, Mr Shrimpton taking a portion and the Land and Loan Company becoming interested in lie other 'portion Mr Shrimpton (like Mr Brown in !the last case) had been the person ;to bring; the land under the Land Transfer Act. Evidence would be led to show that a large number of natives were in rightful possession and occupation in 1866. The Land Court being informed that a large numlber of Hapus were interested, directed that the natives should select ten persons for each, and their names were inserted in the title. He (counsel) admitted that he would have some difficulty in this case, as. he was not yet aware of anyone he could cail who was present at the sitting of the (Land Court, and ail the witnesses who gave evidence there were dead. The further hearing of the case was postponed to Monday.