Untitled

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 6102, 19 March 1891, Page 2

The Lyttelton Times ia entirely wrong in its reference to the, Awarua subdivision investigation which has been sitting at Marton for the last Heven mouths. The Times says, "We are informed that tho usual effort is now going to be made to obtain a re - hearing , ." This is surely premature, as ths judguent of the Court is not yet delivered, and in fact will not be rriven at the earliest before June next. It is not usual to appeal before the litigants know what the finding of the Court is. The fault of the d-ihiy in delivering judgment lies entirely wi'.h the Government; the officers of the Court must be hsld blameless. The Awarua, block was investigated in ' 1886, upon what, was known as a "sketch plan," end the Court fonnd that there were 437 people entitled to ihe hind. Buforo subdivision or tiffining of relative interests could.be dealt with, a properly certified and approved plan h:-id to be before the Court. When the C'Kirt sat last July in Marton to subdivide tho block it was found thiit the plan was ooly " approved" for the land to the west ef the provincial boundary, the natives being , informed that tho portion of tho block, 23,000 acres, in the flawke's Btiy provincial district, belonged to the Government, being a part of the Otaranga block purchased in 1857. The Court, therefore, had to proceed to subdivide the portion for which an approved plan was before them. With regard to the claim of the Government, a Commisoion was appointed and held exhaustive investigations, their finding being agninst the Crown, only some 2000 acres being found to be included in the original purchase. This necessitated further survey defining the boundary between the block and the Awarua, and until this won completed tho:Court could have no certified or approved plan before them of tho biock under investigation, consequently could not issue n. certificate, and therel'ou , decided to defer their judgment, though all evidence was concluded, until such map whs before them. The delay is really the fault of the Survey Department, for t.'i:u finding of the CoinHii.isiim was delivered at lea.?t live months am*. It vvas iiin!iuor,ly the duty of the Government to ''mmsdiately proceed with the nuoessary survey, and if this had been done the judgment would have been given v fortnight ago, and the purchase could have been proceeded with.