MAORI APPEALS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 1, 1 July 1926, Page 9

MAORI APPEALS

NATIVE COURT AT CHRIST CHURCH.

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.)

CHRISTCHURCH, 30th June. The Oddfellows' Hall was again crowded to-day with Maoris from various tribes throughout New Zealand, when appeals in the Native Land Court on the Ngaitahu claim were being heard before Judge C. E. MaeCormick (Auckland) and Judge J. W. Brown (Wanganui). It was stated that the appellants in the Ngaitahu elar- had been unable to agree to have the claims heard together, and therefore eleven appeals are to be taken in rotation. Th appeal of the Thomas family of Southland was- heard, in respect of a decision given, at Tuahiwi in March, 1925, on the determination of the persons entitled to -relief that may be granted in the Ngaitahu claim. Mr. Ellers, of Masterton; for the appellants, said that the grandfather of tho appellants had. resided at Little River, and was an owner in the Ngaitahu purchase of 1848, and occupied his rights. The Chief Judge's decision, on which the appeal was made, had been to the effect that those who occupied or had been buried owning land within this purchase were entitled to full shares. Mrs. Thomas, the appellant's mother, who had gone to Southland, had not been included. These cases were not inquired into, and ■ were allowed to stand down, and when called the appellants had left the Court for their homes. The grandparents were owners in Kaitorekai, which was. included in the Peninsula sale, and they had lost by Fenton's Court of 1868 the portion known as the Ellesmere reserve. Decision was reserved. Teone Topi Patuki and others (Mr. Royle) lodged a similar appeal in respect to the Ngaitahu decision at Tuahiwi. Mr. Royle said that the appellant was the son of a chief who signed Kemp's deed, and that his name appeared on the list of owners who were entitled to participate in lands within that purchase. Land had been allotted in the Tautaku block for those who were omitted in the purchase, and those chiefs were entitled to compensation of £354,000. Judge MaeCormick said that in that case the chiefs and not the Natives, owned the lands, and the ground of appeals was that their ancestor had signed the deed. Mr. Pitama, who opposed the appeal, contended that Patuki had no right of occupation. Decision was reserved. The Judges gave their reserved decision in the appeal of Tamo Tawera and Mere Hirini (Mr. Marsh) in respect of a decision given by Judge Gilfedder at Temuka in June, 1925, regarding the appointment of successors to Miriama Hirini (Tawera). The appellants claimed the remainder of the estate of their mother, a portion of which had been willed to the children of her half-sister. The Court amended the decision of the lower Court so that the shares should be. equally divided into thirds, but did notalter the decision as to the beneficiaries.