NATIVE WOMEN'S LAND

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 67, 17 September 1917, Page 8

NATIVE WOMEN'S LAND

PECULIAR VESTING ORDER

Sitting in Chambers this morning his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Eobert Stout) heard argument in. an originating summons dealing with the changing hands of a small block of Maori land. The parties were Teaka Pairama and Tehui Pairama, native women of Pio Pio, v. Edwin Henry Hardy, surveyor, Te Kuiti.

Mr. B. P. Bunny .appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. T. Neave for the defenQanl. .

Mr. Bunny said that the native plaintiffs were owners of a block of 386 acres in the King Country, and, in 1907, a survey of it was made incurring expense to the plaintiffs amounting to £27. The Act of 1894' had a provision under which a surveyor, if he had not received payment, could go before a Native. Land Court Judge and get an order for payment chargeable on the land. In 1910 Judge Eawson granted such an order chargeable on the lands over a period of five years —strictly in accordance with the Act. But, in 1913, the surveyor got an order vesting in him some 26 acres 1 rood of the chargeable land. This, counsel contended, the Native Land Court had no power to grant. The Chief Justice : Do you contend that this Court can then issue an order quashing the vesting order. Mr. Bunny : "I do." He went on to say that an adjoining settler had long had a desire to get hold.of some of the Natives' land, and when the block of land was vested in the surveyor he proceeded to sell it to the settler, receiving £150 for it, which he put in his pocket—and for a debt of £27. The Natives held that their land was much more valuable than the amounts paid for it. It was ratheT remarkable that the Natives, never knew anything about the vesting of their land in the surveyor. The Chief Justice : I am' afraid that is not remarkable in Native Courts. Would not the proper course, if things are as you say, be to commence an action for fraud against the surveyor and the settler? . :

Mr. Neave assented.

Mr. Bunny went on to say he wanted an order as between the surveyor and the Native plaintiffs.

For the defence, Mr. Neave contended that the vesting order granted to the «urve3'or was perfectly legal; relying on section 34 of the 1903 Act.

Legal argument was proceeding when Th« Post went to press.