INTERESTING.LAND CASE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 95, 19 October 1909, Page 8

INTERESTING. LAND CASE.

RESTRICTIONS ' AGAINST ALIENATION. Certain restrictions as to the disposal of riatrve reserves at Kaiapoi were the subject of a case before the Court of Appeal to-day. The Bench was occupied by their Honours Justices Williams (Acting-Chief Justice), Dennieton, Edwards, Cooper and Chapman. The plaintiffs were the Attorney-General (at the relation of Mere Te Aika and Tini Arapata, of Kaiapoi) and Mere Te Aika and Tini Arapata, also on their own behalf. The defendants were Ruita Mono Te Aika (Kaiapoi}, Rahera Whitau (Temuka), Amirea Kemara (Te-| muka), Tupae Reihana and Eruera Te Aika (Kaiapoi). j Mr. T. W. Stringer, K.C. (with him ! Mr Levi) apneared for the phiintiff natives, Mr. D." M. Findlay for the Attor-ney-General, and Mr G. Harper for the defendants. The reserve in question was small, being only 14 acres 1 rood 1 perch in area. It was part of a vast tract" of 20,070,314 acres, known as Kemp's purchase, made i in 1848 to William Wakifield, agent of the New Zealand Land Company. The deed of surrender read : "Hear ye, all ye people, we the chiefs ! and people of Ngaitahu, who have signed I our names and marks to this deed, consent to. surrender for ever to William Wakefield, agent for the New Zealand Company, etc., etc., all our lands and all our possessions .... Our places of residence and cultivations are to be reserved t for us, and our children after us, and it shall be for the Government to set apart for us when the land is surveyed, but the greater part of the land is unreservedly given up to the Europeans for ever." The deed ends with a provision for the payment of £2000 consideration with the signatures. The boundaries of the territory were roughly from Milford Sound to Cape Foulwind on the west, from Cape Foulwind to the Kaiapoi River on the north, from Kaiapoi to Nugget Point on the east, and from thence te Milford Sound on the south. Pursuant to the deed, reserves were made to . tho natives 'by the New Zealand Land Company. One of the reserves at Kaiapoi was the subject of the present litigation. A fundamental condition of the grants was that the estates an,d interests created thereby should- be entailed so as to make them inalienable to persons other than the Maori race. Provisions in the grant to Aperatama Te Aika in 1865, forbid any disposition of the land included in the grant by sale, mortgage, leas>e or otherwise without tho consent of the Governor or some person duly appointed by him. On the death of the grantee the Governor might, without prejudice to any Bale, mortgage, lease, or other disposition made with such consent, direct the succession and dispose of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Intestate Natives Succession Act, 1861. Aperatama Te Aika in his last will and testament devised specifically the section of land in question to the plaintiffs. Probate of the will was granted by the Native Land Court in 1892. The defendants contended that the devise was inoperative by reason of the restrictions contained in the Crown grant and applied to the Native Land Court to be appointed successors to Aperatama Te Aika according to native custom. The plaintiffs claimed that the provisors contained in the Crown grant wero invalid, being inserted without lawful authority. They asked the court ti- declare the provisions void and order them to be struck out. Mr. Stringer submitted that the original grant of land was a native reserve, but, when this was partititioned among separate natives, it became individualised, ceasing lo be a native reserve. The partition mads a grant of the section at issue in fee simple. (Left Sitting.)