IN BANCO.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 899, 19 August 1910, Page 3

IN BANCO.

PROBLEM IN NATIVE LAND LAW. 1 HOROWHENUA BLOCK. ■ The partition of tho block of 'land known as Horowhenua No. XI among Native, owners was' tinder' consideration in the ■ Supreme Court yesterday i before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), sitting in Banco. • ''•'., ' '.- Horowhenua No. XI has been the subject of a good deal of litigation in the past. It is. ii block of land near Levin, comprising .W,!)75 acres, ami is part of the' -Horowhenua Block, which contains 52,468-acre's, The original title-to. the whole block was a'certificate of title under section 17. of the. Native Land .-\ct, 1867 . ami-this, certificate..•.was.!issued by the Native Laud Court to the.late ileilia te Rang!' Niwibiir •(MajorVKemn), tho names of -143 owners interested in the land being registered in the Nntive • Land Court: -In 1886, ~ the Horowhenua ' Block was partitioned into fourteen subdivisions, one of' which--N6. ■• Xl-ivas -registered. in ■ the names of' Major Iveuip -and jWarpna- te Hakeke, but it was determined by the 'Supreme Court and by tho Court of-Ap-peal, in 1891, that they held the land in trust and not as sole or beneficial owners. - The -.Courts did not: state, who ■were the persons entitled- as.-benelioml-owners. T-wu: .years later tlic Horowhenua Block Act was passed, and the Native Appellate Court, in 18'JS, in pursuance of the powers, by_that statute, divided the claimants to Uorowhenua;,No. -XI into four classes, declaring thatfttiirty-iivo.of them had no right,, that 103-were .admitted to have a conlpleto or-partial. rightV.that'37 were generally objected, toramt that 20 were total; !y objected-t0..-.' •■ • .' • - -~ .'•' To quash this order of tho Native Appellate. Court was the object of the motion -which brought'the matter before tho Chief- Justice- yesterday, lhe plaintiffs wer&AViri liana, Huma "Ivingii ■ 1 uiui, and other'.:aS T atives,>similarly interested, Tho grounds'- of the. motion.were- that the order was made without jurisdiction, that it omitted'- the'- names of. a large number of Natives'wlio were entitled, to bo admitted as owners, that it did not- show why such names were, omitted, and that the Court was limited by the Horowhenua Block Act. 1896. to tho ascertainment of interests, and had,no jurisdiction to exclude any of the persons named in tho sixth, schedule of the Act, for the reason that they had sufficient land..or for any other Mr. P.- E. Baldwin (Pulincrston North) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr..M. P Luckie also supported tho motion on behalf of -three Natives not represented by Mr. Baldwin. The Solicitor-General (Mr J. W. Salmond) opposed the motion on behalf of the Chief Judge of tlie Native Appellate Court, and Mr..A. A. S. Men tea th opposed on'behalf of 17 Native owners. - - ■' Mr. Baldwin submitted that, a writ of certiorari to quash tho -order, would liu against the Native Appellato Court. The Solicitor-General argued that the order of the Native Appellate Court was correct, that tho Supremo Court had no jurisdiction to grant a writ, of certiorari against the Native Appellate Court, and that the issue of a writ of certiorari was ti discretionary matter, and that was not a proper case fdr one. -.' After hearing argument, his Honour reserved his -decision.

ALTERATION OF BOUNDARIES,

LICENSING ; LAW. ~ Judgment was. given yesterday by Mr. Justice Cooper in the case of Henry Wolters, licensee of the Seddonvillo Hotel v. tho Motueka. Licensing Committee.. The case arose out of an application for the removal' of the hotel to a point a short distance further north. This application was made to the' Motueka Licensing Committee in September, • 1008, and adjourned by the committee,- but granted at its meeting' in December of tho samo year. The : licenso was' renewed at the annual meeting of tho committee in 1309, bnt when the renewal was again applied for iu the' ordinary course at tho- annual meeting this year, .the committee found itself in doubt as to whether tho licenso was a validly existing one, and whether it could be lawfully renewed. The ground of these doubts was. that the alteration of the boundaries of licensing districts (which occurred in 1908,. between the application for removal and the grant of the same) led to the existence of . a vacant license in tho adjoining district of Bullcr, and one too many in the Motueka' district. The committee, therefore, adjourued the application for renewal, pending a decision of the Supreme Court, and in order to obtain such decision the licensee took out an' originating summons under the Declaratory Judgments Act. At the hearing last Monday, Mr. A. T. Maginnity, of Nelson, appeared in support of the summons. The Licensing Committee was not represented, but was . prepared ito submit to tho judgment of tho Court. ; . .

His Honour's judgmont was to the effect that the license was a validly existing one, and could be lawfully renewed. Ife said that the doubt in the minds of the committee arose; because- of tho" provisions of Section lOC, and Section 52 of the Licensing. Act, 1908.' Section 106 made the right of an applicant for renewal of a license subject to tho provisions of the Act relating to licensing polls, and Section ,i 2 prescribed that "Every license granted or renewed by any licensing committee in opposition ;to the determination of the electors of any district . . . shall be absolutely void and of no offect." The licensing poll was taken on November 17. 11*08, and the voters were the electors of the present

district. They .determined that "the number of licenses existing in the district is. to continue." At tho timo of tho.poll tho plaintiff's hotel had been completely erected on the .present site. He had on July 20, 1908, lodged his application for a removal of tho license from the old site to the new. He applied for this removal atthe quarterly meeting held on September 4, 1908, and, if the committee had .then been satisfied that the distance between the old site and the new was not more than a mile, the removal raild (hen have been granted. The application was adjourned until the December meeting solely because the committeedesired tho distance to be accurately measured. It was in fact oulv threequarters of a mile. Although between. September and December, 1908', the new district had been constituted, mid the licensing poll had been taken, the. jurisdiction ot the ■ committee to grant tho removal was complete. For that purpose, the Act expressly provided that the original area, of the district existed unchanged. As the plaintiff.clearly had a right before the ..poll to apply for the removal, and as the committee had clear jurisdiction, notwithstanding the'poll, to grant it, his Honour was of opinion that the- applicant's right to apply for a subsequent renewal, and the committee's jurisdiction to grant it could onh* be destroyed'vby express words, or. by. a conclusive inference from the terms used m tho statute. He found no such words, nor could, he draw any such conclusive inference. According' to his reading of Sections 106 and 52, if continuance was carried at the poll, every person who had, at the time tho committee held its first annual meeting-after the licensing poll, a-then validly existing license within tho altered district,' was entitled to apply for a renewal, and the committee ' hail jurisdiction to grant, it.

ROADMAKING AT UPPER HUTT.

JUDGMENT GIVEN. The \Ciiief Justice '(Sir Robert Stout) gave .his decision yesterday in the case of tho Upper Hntt Township Company v. tho Upper .Hntt Town Board. ' Tho essential facts of tho case aro as follow:—The plaintiff company some twu or three .years ago obtained the sanction of the Hutt County Council of certain plans for the-subdivision and roading of land owned by the company. Before any of the roads had been formed or dedicated, the Upper Hutt Town Board camo into existence in March, 1008, and its district included the • company's land, llenco arose the questions which camo before bis Honour in Banco on an originating summons. The main noiut at issue was whether the board coukf impose upon the company in connection with tho formation of roads any further requirements than those which had satisfied the County Council. The plaintiff company was represented by Mr. M. Luekie, and tho defendant beard" by Mr. P. Levi.

After hearing counsel last Tuesday, his Honour adjourned the case in order that Mr. Levi might ascertain' whether a proposal made by the company would be acceptable to the board.

When tho case came up' again yesterday, Mr. Levi said the board would accept the offer. ." ' His Honour said it would probably be cheaper for the board to do so. It looked tu him at present as. if they would otherWise bo bound to sanction the roads without anything further than formation being done. His: judgment was: "In my opinion the board cannot impose further conditions to those fixed by tho County Council." .