THE MATAMATA EJECTMENT.

Evening Star, Issue 7195, 25 April 1887, Page 1

THE MATAMATA EJECTMENT.

In Firth v. Paroga and other Natives, the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff completely demolished the theory of constant 'occupation on the part of the defendants. 1 Mr Justice Ward ruled that the first portion of the case—that the certificate of title under the Land Transfer Act was bad owing to legal fraud in the application—had failed. Mr Bell said that after considering the effect of the verdict the night before, he admitted that it was destructive of the most important part of the case, and, after consultation with the Natives, he had determined not to proceed any further ; counsel for the plaintiff foregoing the claim for costs. He therefore consented to judgment being entered for the plaintiff for possession of land and one shilling damages ; writ for possession to be entered for three months, to enable Natives to remove their crops. As Mr Firth was present he might mention that he was asked by the Natives to appeal to him to protect their burial places from desecration. He did not claim in any way that the Natives had any right in these burial places after the judgment of the Court, but from the evidence given by Mr Firth it appeared to him that his feelings were those of goodwill towards the Native race, and it was those feelings that he appealed to. Mr Button asked His Honor to giva judgment for possession, and direct the Court interpreter to clearly explain to the Natives that if they trespassed a writ would be issued under which they would be removed, the judgment of the Court being that they had no right to the land, Mr Firth, with His Honor's permission, then said that from the beginning he had always desired to be friendly and act fairly to the Native race, and he would use his endeavors to protect their burying places from desecration; but inasmuch as these burial places were included in special settlements, and were therefore |on land the contracts of which had passed out of his hands, he wished it to be clearly understood he could enter into no obligation or make any definite promises. So far as he was personally concerned he would do the best he could, but he could not undertake to mterfere with the rights of other parties.,Mr Button said he clearly understood that Mr Firth was under no legal obligation, Judgment was entered up; and thus ended the most important trial that has ever taken place in reference to Native lands in the Auckland district.