KAIAPOI NATIVE LEASES.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13870, 22 October 1910, Page 3

KAIAPOI NATIVE LEASES.

CRITICISM OF THE NEW BILL. Some exception is taken in legal circles to the nature and scope of th« Bill now before Parliament dealing; with the Kaiapoi native leases. A member of the profession interviewed makes tho following rather nointed comments: — "The Bill dealing with the Kaiapoi natives leases ut present before Cli« House is a striking example of the evils of hasty legislation. It proposes to set. up a Commission to enquire into the grievances of those natives who have lost lands which have been devised to thorn, owing to the Court of Appeal having pronounced against the validity of the wills under which these lands were. held. So far, so good. But the , BUI goes further, and enacts that all uroceedingf. which, have- already been commenced under the existing nativo hw shall ho stayed, and that execution shall not ha allowed to bo issued in those casos in which judgment has already been obtained. This is an iniquitous , proceeding, as it means that those natives who have at great exnense succeeded in obtaining a perfectly valid and legal judgment under tlie existing law, are no-.v left with a worthless judgment on their hands, as it cannot be enforced by execution. The fact that same natives have obtained a j judgment of a competent Court with i proper jurisdiction in their favour !is entirely overlooked, and in effect tho Government, in aii airy manner, pronounce the decisions of ! their own tribunals to be worthless, and ma lie no provision for compensating the uni'ortunate natives who have already incurred exoen.so in legal proi cee'iinas. Wo quite admit that it is ! desirable that a Commission should be i sot u;j to enquire into tho grievances of tlie natives, but natural justice demnnds that decisions which liavo alrencly been riven by competent Courts, and against which no appeal lias been made, should be protected. If the precedent created by this Bill wcro to bo followed, it would moan thnt a litigant who, at the expense of some hundreds of pounds, has carried his ense through successive Courts to the Privy Council, and has succeeded in obtaining; in his favour a judgment there, might have his victory rendered nugatory by the Legislature of New Zealand' enacting th.it the- judgement of tho Privy Council should be of no effect. It is a first principle of good law that existing rights should be protected, and if this Bill passes it will work tho greatest injustice on those mtives who have already had recourse to litigation."