NATIVE APPELLATE COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 305, 18 September 1908, Page 2

NATIVE APPELLATE COURT.

QUESTION OF PARTITION.' ' . The sittings of the Native Appellate "Court were resumed yesterday, when' Presiding Judgo' Seth Smith, Judge' M'Cbrmaok", "and' Mr. Raureti Mokunuirangi took their;, seats at 10 a.m. . '_ . . . Argument was heard ivith respect ,to an appeal from a decision given by judgejllaw-. son at Otaki iii July, 1907. His Honouiy'it will bo remembered, made an allocation of . the various interests.in. the block-called Manawatu-lvukutanaki No. 4e. . The appeal involved consideration of tho ; . ; question whether a conveyance made:to Robert-Rans« field by two Natives was effective.'The land <■ , now in question comprises 66 acres, v Mr. llorison, who appeared on behalf'-of the appellant, Maiiahi to Hiakai, submitted that inasmuch as the root of the title was a Grown grant under . the Volunteers and Others' Land Act, 1877, and,that tho grant . : comprised restrictions against sale, mortgage, ! or lease for a longer period than twenty-ons ; years without the consent of the Governor, i tho couveyauco t-o Ransfield by the Natives in. question was invalid.' • He further - con- : tended that tho Cpurt could givo liim facilities, if it did not hold-in his favour,on that question, to attack tho'registration ' of the conveyance, which had been effected under tho Land Transfer system. • f" Mr. Trcadwell, who■ reprfesentod the -ro > spondent Robert Ransfield, contended :that there was authority to impose restrictions on tho grant of lands reserved and .granted under the Volunteers and ' Others Lands Act, 1877, and that tho restrictions, ,i£ so imposed, must bo imposed under the express provisions of tho contract made between the Crown and tho Natives on-the cession of tho land from the Natives t-othe; Crown. Ho ■ i further .urged that, inasmuch as tile: conveyanco was by way of gift from relatives to Ransfield, tho restrictions' against sale did not apply—in, fact, that tho. restrictions, ' against sale did not prevent a gift. In sup- • port of this contention he isi'.od' <i«jisiu!is''«f tho Supremo Court and the Court. ijf'AppAl. to the effect that a gift was not A sale, also . to tho effect that the restrictions in the j nature of thoso quoted did not prevent a j gift by will and, consequently, had no n-oro I effect in preventing a gift by deed." H'o also i contended that : even if the document wife invalid, as being' contrary to tho rontrie. j lions, the protection of the Land TrftnxtV > Act extended to his client, who-had' acled i without fraud. • ' ' '. . ' ; The Court intimated that r t would take timo' to consider its judgment. ' ,